IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CRIMINAL PETITION NO.550 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITIION NO.551 OF 2018 & CRIMINAL PETITION NO.549/2018 CRL.P.NO.550/2018 BETWEEN:
BADRU LAMANI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O BHIMALU LAMANI R/AT. COFFEE RESEARCH STATION CHETTALLI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571248.
(BY MR. SHYAM KOUNDINYA A.S. ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION, MADIKERI REP. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT.
2. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA R AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O NITHYANANDHAN S R/O. CHERALA SRIMANGALA COFFEE RESEARCH STATION CHETTAHALLI, KODAGU-571248.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (BY MR. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN FIR No.4/2018 OF MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION, KODAGU DISTRICT ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT MADIKERI KODGU DISTRICT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 HOLDING THE SAME AS BASE LESS AND AS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW & ETC.
CRL.P.NO.551/2018 BETWEEN:
K.T. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O THIMMAIAH R/AT. COFFEE RESEARCH STATION CHETTALLI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571248.
(BY MR. SHYAM KOUNDINYA A.S. ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION, MADIKERI REP. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT, BENGALURU.
2. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA R AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O NITHYANANDHAN S R/O. CHERALA SRIMANGALA COFFEE RESEARCH STATION CHETTAHALLI, KODAGU-571248.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (BY MR. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN FIR No.4/2018 OF MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION, KODAGU DISTRICT ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT MADIKERI KODGU DISTRICT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 HOLDING THE SAME AS BASE LESS AND AS MERE ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW & ETC.
CRL.P.NO.549/2018 BETWEEN:
B.T. HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O B.R. THIMMA SHETTY R/AT. COFFEE RESEARCH STATION CHETTALLI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571248.
(BY MR. SHYAM KOUNDINYA A.S. ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION, MADIKERI REP. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT.
2. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA R AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O NITHYANANDHAN S R/O. CHERALA SRIMANGALA COFFEE RESEARCH STATION CHETTAHALLI, KODAGU-571248.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (BY MR. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN FIR No.4/2018 OF MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION, KODAGU DISTRICT ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT MADIKERI KODGU DISTRICT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 HOLDING THE SAME AS BASE LESS AND AS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW & ETC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr. Shyam Koundinya A.S., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. VijayaKumar Majage, Additional SPP for the respondent.
In these petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners inter alia seeks quashment of the complaint in FIR No.0004/18 registered against the petitioners by Madikeri Rural Police Station, which is pending on the file of JMFC Court, Madikeri, Kodagu District.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of the petitions, briefly stated are that the petitioners joined the Coffee Board as Research Assistant in the year 1998 and presently posted as Physiologist since May 2016 under Coffee Research sub-Station, Kodagu. The respondent No.2 is employed as Junior Coffee Researcher in the same station. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioners in which an allegation was made that the petitioners have been harassing respondent No.2 mentally and has insulted her by talking about her character in a low language. In pursuance of the complaint made by respondent No.2, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioners in the aforesaid departmental enquiry, the petitioners were exonerated of the charges leveled against him and the proceedings in the departmental enquiry was closed on 03.10.2017. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed another complaint before Madikeri Rural Police Station, on the basis of which, First Information Report for the offences under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered against the petitioners. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the complaint are vague and even if the allegations are accepted at their face value prima facie no offence against the petitioners is made out. On the other hand, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague.
4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is well settled law that once First Information Report is registered, the accused can always approach this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A Two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of ‘STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS VS CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ORS’, AIR 1992 SC 604 after taking note of the decisions in the cases of ‘HAZARI LAL GUPTA VS RAMESHWAR PRASHAD & ANR’, 1972 (1) SCC 452, ‘JEHAN SINGH VS DELHI ADMINISTRATION’, AIR 1974 SC 1146, ‘AMAR NATH VS. STATE OF HARYANA’, AIR 1977 SC 2185, ‘KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY VS. STATE OF HARYANA’, AIR 1977 SC 2229, ‘STATE OF BIHAR VS. J.A.C. SALDANHA’, AIR 1980 SC 326, ‘STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SWAPAN KUMAR GUHA’, AIR 1982 SC 949, ‘SMT.NAGAWWA VS. VEERANNA SHIVALINGAPPA KONJALGI’, AIR 1976 SC 1947 and ‘MADHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA VS. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE’, AIR 1988 SC 709, ‘STATE OF BIHAR VS. MURAD ALI KHAN’, AIR 1989 SC 1I dealt with the contour of exercise of inherent powers of the High court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The view taken by the Supreme Court has been reiterated in the case of Bhajanlal supra.
5. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘THE STATE OF TELANGANA VS. HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI & ORS’, (2017) 2 SCC 779. The illustrations read as under:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 55 of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground or proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceeding and /or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. It is worthy to note that the court has clarified that the said parameters for guidelines are not exhaustive but only illustrative. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and situations where courts inherent power can be exercised.
6. The relevant statutory provision read as under:
Section 509 of Indian Penal Code-
509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.—Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 3(1)(r)-
3. Punishments for offences atrocities.— (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (a) xxxxxx (b) xxxxxx (c) xxxxxx (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
Section 3(1)(s)-
3. Punishments for offences atrocities.— (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (a) xxxxxx (b) xxxxxx (c) xxxxxx (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;
Section 3(2)(v-a) 3. Punishments for offences atrocities - (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (i) xxxxxx (ii)xxxxxx (iii)xxxxxx (va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;
7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid well settled legal position, the facts of the case on hand may be examined. Admittedly, the allegations which have been made against the petitioners and in respect of which the parties have jointly agreed as follows in Crl.P.Nos.550/2018 & 549/2019:
‘for past eight years the petitioner is harassing respondent No.2 mentally’.
‘The petitioner has insulted the complainant by talking about her character in low language and the petitioner has misbehaved with her for past about eight years.’ In Crl.P.No.551/2019 the allegation is as follows:
‘The accused persons have referred the complainant as film actress.’ 8. From perusal of the admitted version of the complaint filed by respondent No.2, the relevant extract of which has been referred, it is evident that the allegations leveled against the petitioners prima facie even if are accepted at the face value do not make out any offence against the petitioners. From the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offence against the petitioners are not fulfilled. The allegations made in the complaint do not disclose any cognizable offence committed by the petitioners. The complaint has been made with a view to wreak vengeance against the petitioners and if the proceedings are allowed to continue the same would amount to abuse of process of law. The instant case is a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. The allegations made in the complaint are vague and in the complaint even the date, time and place of the incident is also not mentioned, which is evident from the relevant extract of the complaint, which has been referred to supra. The allegations made in the complaint are omnibus in nature.
9. In view of the preceding analysis, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offences punishable under 509 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 in Crime No.0004/2018 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Madikeri, Kodagu District are hereby quashed .
In the result the petitions are allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS