IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NO.39294/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN 1. A AMRUTH RAJ S/O LATE T.ANAND RAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: REVENUE ASSESSOR, BBMP J.C.NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE R/AT NO.3/1, BERLIE STREET, LANGFORD TOWN, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.
(BY SRI HASMATH PASHA, SR. ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASURUGATE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY-560 002 (REP BY LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) 2. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS REP. BY ITS CABINET SECRETARY 4TH FLOOR, A-WING, RASHTRAPATI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110 004 (REP BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL) ...PETITIONER 3. SWARNALATHA .S W/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.174, RAJIV GANDHI COLONY, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 051.
4. BABU S/O GURUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, CLASS-IV EMPLOYEE OFFICE OF THE BBMP BENGLAURU-560001.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI C.SHASHIKANTHA, ASGI FOR R2, SRI M.Y.SREENIVASAN, ADV. FOR R3 & R4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 18A OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondents 3 & 4 and the learned HCGP.
2. Petitioner and respondent no.4 are the employees of BBMP and the members of Employees Co-operative Society. That as members of the society, differences arose and leading to the filing of suits and complaints and that one such proceeding in that direction has been the instant complaint registered as Crime No.145/2019 with respondent no.1-Police Station complaining commission of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 323, 354-B, 504 & 506 IPC.
3. Learned HCGP would contend that the offences are registered under Section 354-B and is not compoundable.
4. On perusal of the complaint, it is seen that there is no allegation that the petitioner attempted to dis-robe or compel respondent no.3 to be strip and be in the nude. On a query, respondent no.3 who is present before the Court would submit that no other attempt was made except touching her clothes. If that be the fact, the offence committed would be one under Section 354 IPC and the same is compoundable by the victim/complainant.
5. The petitioner and respondents 3 & 4 are present before the Court and are identified by their respective Counsels and the parties submit that they have amicably resolved their differences. A joint affidavit is also filed by the parties, which reads as under:
“JOINT AFFIDAVIT We, 1) A. Amrutharaj S/o Late A. Anand Raj, aged about 44 years, Occupation: Revenue Assessor BBMP, J.C Nagar Sub-Division, Bangalore, Residing at No.3/1, Berlie Street, Langford Town, Shantinagar, 2) Swarnalatha W/o Shankar, aged about 45 years, R/at No. 174, Rajiv Gandhi Colony, Queens Road, Queens Road, Bangalore-51, 3) Babu S/o Guraiah, aged about 56 years, Class-IV Employee, Office of BBMP, Bangalore-51, do hereby solemnly state on oath as hereunder:-
1. On the basis of complaint filed by respondent No. 3 Crime No. 145/2019 for an offences under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and under sections 323, 354-B, 504 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner and challenging the said proceedings the instant writ petition is filled by the petitioner 2. The fourth Respondent Babu is the Employee in BBMP. The petitioner is also Employee in BBMP as Revenue Officer. There is a Co-operative Society of BBMP Employees, for which the petitioner is the President. Regarding this society there were some differences in between members of Co-operative Society and Respondent No. 4 and due to these differences a complaint was filed through Respondent No. 3 who is his sister.
3. The allegation made in FIR are purely personal and civil in nature due to differences regarding functioning of BBMP Employees Co-operative Society and regarding this civil suits were also filed and those civil suits are also being compromised in between us. Therefore, if the FIR is quashed no impact on society at large. The offences alleged are not of moral turpitude. Therefore to secure the ends of justice quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings is necessary.
4. We submit that, we have settled our dispute amicably with the help of friends and well wishers and we hereby withdraw allegations leveled against the petitioner and therefore the instant petition may be allowed.
5. We, have no claim as against each other either civil or criminal.
6. We are affixing copies of our respective identity proof Aadhar card as Document No. 1 to 3 respectively.
7. We are filing this joint affidavit voluntarily without any threat, force or coercion.
WHEREFORE, we the petitioner and Respondents No. 3 and 4 in the above case pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to Quash the FIR in Crime No. 145/2019 for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and under sections 323, 354-B, 504 and 506 of IPC on the file of Halasuru Gate Police Station, pending on the file Hon’ble LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CCH-71), Bangalore and all consequential proceedings, in the ends of justice.”
6. On a specific query, respondent no.3 submits that she desires to withdraw the complaint on account of the past relationship and that she does not desire to proceed further with the complaint. Hence, the joint affidavit is taken on record.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. FIR in Crime No.145/2019 registered with respondent No.1-police stands quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR