IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5347 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
B.K. SRINIVASAMURTHY, S/O SRI. S.D. KRISHNAPPA, AGED 42 YEARS, (MUNICIPALITY CHIEF OFFICER, HARAPANAHALLI) ... PETITIONER (BY SMT: LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI: VARUN VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M.V. ANJINAPPA, S/O. THUMANAPPA, 40 YEARS "BOVI JANANGA" MUNICIPAL COUNCILLOR, HARAPANAHALLI TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HARAPANAHALLI.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION HARAPANAHALLI. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R2; SRI: S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. CASE (SC/ST) NO.13/2012 IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., DAVANAGERE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner was the Chief Officer of Taluk Municipal Corporation, Harapanahalli. On 17.02.2010, when the petitioner was in his chambers, the complainant and others entered the chambers of the petitioner to enquire him about convening of a General Body Meeting and at that time, the petitioner is alleged to have abused the complainant calling out his caste in public view and also hit him with his shoes and publicly insulted the complainant on account of his caste. In respect of this incident, the complainant lodged a report before Harapanahalli police and the same was registered in Cr.No.24/2010 under Sections 355, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the said proceedings.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.2 and learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent No.1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of very same incident, a prior complaint was lodged by the petitioner and same was registered in Cr.No.23/2010. The complainant himself barged into the chamber of the petitioner, abused and assaulted the petitioner and attempted to commit his murder. In this regard, a charge sheet was also laid against the complainant under Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 114, 506, 307, 353 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and after trial, the complainant as well as other accused have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 147, 323, 353, 114 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code. Instant complaint therefore is a sequel to the above proceedings and is motivated and vexatious and hence prayed to quash the said proceedings.
3. Refuting the submissions, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima-facie disclose commission of the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. The petitioner was very well aware of the caste of the complainant and with an intention to belittle and insult him in public view, he not only assaulted the complainant with shoes, but also abused him taking out his caste. Therefore, prima-facie material is available in proof of the accusations levelled against the petitioner. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is laid against the petitioner. The charge sheet reinforces the accusations made against the petitioner. Hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
4. Insofar as the allegations made in the complaint attracting the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act are concerned, a careful reading of the averments made in the complaint indicate that at the time of the incident, apart from the complainant, four other councilors of the Town Municipal Council were present in the chambers of the petitioner. It is not clear as to whether the abuses hurdled by the petitioner were directed to the complainant or to other members present there.
In the complaint, it is stated that when the complainant and others questioned the petitioner as to what steps he had taken to convene the General Body Meeting, the petitioner herein questioned the complainant and others as to who allowed them to enter his chambers and thereafter he kicked the complainant with his shoes. The subsequent averments indicate that the abuses were hurdled against all the persons who were present in the chamber. These abuses therefore cannot be construed as directed only against the complainant as sought to be made out by the complainant. There are no averments whatsoever in the entire complaint to suggest that the complainant was aware of the caste of the petitioner. There are also no assertions in the complaint that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste. Without these basic averments, petitioner cannot be accused of committing offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. The allegations made in the complaint are not supported or corroborated by the statements of any other independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. That apart, the alleged incident having been taken place inside the chambers of the petitioner, the same cannot be considered as place within “public view”. In that view of the matter, ingredients of Section 3(1) (x) of the Act having not been made out, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence cannot be sustained.
5. Coming to the offence under Sections 355, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code are concerned, there are prima-facie material to show that during occurrence, accused has used force and assaulted the complainant with shoes and therefore, in my view, the prosecution of the petitioner could be maintained for the offences punishable under sections 355, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code. To that extent, petition deserved to be allowed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed-in-part. The proceedings registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 3(1) (x) of the Act is quashed. The trial shall proceed against the petitioner only for the offences punishable under sections 355, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek for his discharge before the trial court on such grounds available under law. Since the proceedings are of the year 2012, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within an outer limit of six months from the date of communication of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-