IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5277 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. DR. H NANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE. N T H GOWDA, PROFESSOR AND PRINCIPAL, YUVARAJA COLLEGE, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE- 570017 R/AT NO. 4629, 16TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU 570017 2. DR. JAYARAMU S C AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKA MANCHE GOWDA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, YUVARAJA COLLEGE, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE.
R/AT NO. 66/B, 3RD CROSS, SIDDALINGESHWARA NAGARA, 2ND STAGE, BOGADI, MYSORE – 570 017. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: D.L. JAGADEESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W PRAMODA .K. ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY LAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION, JLB ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE 570004.
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001 2. DR. CHANDAVAR VIDYA R ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPT. OF STUDIES IN ZOOLOGY, MANASA GANGOTHRI, MYSURU 570006 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: S.CHANDRASHEKARIAH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI: SATISH M.DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN SPL.C.NO.45/2016 (CR.NO.93/2015) ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FURTHER QUASH THE FIR DATED 10.09.2015 VIDE CR.NO.93/2015 FILED BY R-1 LAKSMIPURAM POLICE, MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 24.05.2016 IN CR.NO.93/2015 FILED BY THE R-1 LAKSHMIPURAM POLICE, MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OF R-2.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings pending on the file of VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Spl.C.No.45/2016 registered for the offences punishable under sections 504, 509, 109 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) (ix) and (x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for short ‘SC/ST Act’).
2. Petitioner No.1 was the Professor and Principal of Yuvaraja College, Mysuru. Petitioner No.2 was the Associate Professor of the said College. Respondent No.2 at the relevant time was working as Associate Professor in the said college. She lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 10.09.2015 before the Laxmipuram police station, Mysuru, based on which, Cr.No.93/2015 was registered against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under section 3 (1) (11), 4 of SC/ST Act. However, after investigation, charge sheet came to be laid against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 504, 509, 109 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (ix), (x) of the SC/ST Act.
Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.L. Jagadeesh, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned HCGP on behalf of respondent No.1 State. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset would submit that the allegations made in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet, even if accepted as true, do not make out any of the ingredients of the offences either under the provisions of the SC/ST Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. At the initial stage, there were no allegations whatsoever attracting the offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. It is only in the course of investigation, the complainant came up with the allegations that she was criminally intimidated and abused by the petitioners. Learned Senior counsel would submit that according to the complainant, she was subjected to ill- treatment, harassment by petitioner No.2 and his wife accused No.3 at Yuvaraj College right from 1996 and as per her own saying, petitioner No.1 took charge of the said college as Principal only in the year 2013. Her grievance against the petitioners was that, petitioner No.1 being Principal of the College failed to deposit the amount released by the Government amounting to Rs.18.96 lakhs and Rs.19.00 lakhs respectively allotted for the project work in the joint names of the Principal and the complainant. Further, petitioner No.1 was intentionally delaying release of the amount, as a result, she could not submit her report in time. These allegations do not satisfy any of the ingredients of Sections 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code or the provisions of SC/ST Act. Further, he submits that at the instance of the second respondent, on the very same charges, disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioners and the enquiry was conducted by a retired Judicial Officer and after considering all the material on record, both the petitioners were exonerated of the charges indicating that false allegations are levelled against the petitioners solely due to spite and to create a ruse for the delayed submission of the project report. Hence, he pleads that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners being an abuse of the process of Court be quashed in exercise of the power under section 482 Cr.P.C..
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ASMATHUNNISA vs. STATE OF A.P., REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER, AIR 2011 SC 1905 and with reference to paras 10 and 13 would submit that in the absence of any material to show that the complainant was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate her in a place within the public view, the alleged charges under Sections 3(1) (ix), (x) of SC/ST Act are liable to be set-aside. On the same point, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in CHANDRA POOJARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA by SESHADRIPURAM POLICE, BENGALURU, 1998 Crl.L J 53 and with reference to para 6 would contend that in order to attract Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, it is necessary that it should be in a place where public could view the incident.
5. Defending the impugned action, learned HCGP would submit that the accusations made against the petitioners squarely attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 504, 509, 109 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (ix), (x) of SC/ST Act. He submits that merely because the witnesses are not cited in the earliest instance cannot be a reason to doubt the case of the prosecution as long as the allegations made in the charge sheet make out the offences and the said offences are sought to be substantiated through convincing evidence and hence on the purported plea set up by the petitioners, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP and on considering the entire material on record, I am of the view that the allegations made against the petitioners herein do not prima-facie attract any of the ingredients of the offences either under the provisions of Indian Penal Code or under the provisions of SC/ST Act. As already stated above, initially there were no allegations whatsoever against the petitioners attracting the offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. The allegations were confined to the treatment said to have been meted out to the complainant at the work place by petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2.
7. A reading of the compliant indicates that her grievance was related to the failure of petitioner No.1 to deposit the Government grant in the joint names of the complainant and petitioner No.1. It is not the case of the complainant that petitioner No.1 has misappropriated the said amount or has failed to deposit the same in the bank. There are no such allegations. Even if said allegations are assumed to be true, allegations of malafides in respect of the dealings of the officers cannot be a ground to prosecute the officer, who acted in his official capacity. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant had reported the alleged dereliction of duty on the part of petitioner No.1 to any of her higher authorities. There is also nothing on record to show that any such charges were framed against petitioner No.1 amounting to misconduct in the disciplinary inquiry initiated against them. According to the complainant, the alleged incident had taken place way back in the year 2013, whereas, the complaint came to be lodged only in 2015. No reasons are assigned in the complaint for the delay, making it evident that the said allegations are contrived as an afterthought so as to foist criminal charges against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 with ulterior motive.
8. The second instance alleged in the complaint is that petitioner No.1 was intentionally delaying passing of the bills and counter signing the receipts submitted by the complainant. According to the complainant, on account of untimely release of the amount, she could not submit her project report in time. It is also alleged that ignoring her seniority, she was assigned examination duties. These instances in my view do not constitute the ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Undisputedly, the complainant/respondent No.2 was a sub-ordinate to petitioner No.1. There is not even an iota of material in the entire charge sheet to indicate that until lodging of the complaint in question, the complainant/respondent No.2 had raised a little finger about the alleged ill-treatment meted to her at the work place. The complainant appears to have given a colour of her caste to the alleged accusations solely to build up a case against the petitioners. A reading of the complaint does not give out any impression that the petitioners have committed the above acts with intent to belittle and disgrace the complainant/respondent No.2 on account of her caste. The manner in which the complainant has made these allegations suggest that these allegations are engineered solely as to ruse to get over the delayed submission of her project report. In this context, it is pertinent to note that complainant has alleged that on account of non-passing of the bills and non release of amount on time, the submission of the project report was delayed. It is not understandable as to how the complainant can delay submission of the project report for want of release of grant in time. The said allegations has no nexus with the nature of the duty required to be performed by respondent No.2. Assuming that there was such a delay in release of the grant by the petitioners, the same cannot be termed as act of criminal intimidation or any act of insult to the complainant falling with the definition of Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act.
9. The very narration of the events in the complaint indicate that the alleged incidents have taken place within the four corners of the college premises. There is not even a remote reference in the entire complaint or in the initial statement of the complainant that any part of the occurrence had taken place in a place within the public view. The allegations of caste bias are purely an afterthought. In her complaint at the earliest instance, she did not cite any of the witnesses. It is only in her further statement which came to be recorded on 20.11.2015, after lapse of more than two months, she has come up with a theory that the alleged incident had been witnessed by two of the staff members of the college. This is clearly an improvement in the case of the prosecution, which cannot stand the test of law. Thus on consideration of all the above facts and circumstances of the prosecution, I am of the view that the prosecution of the petitioners in the instant case is ulteriorly motivated, vexatious, false and baseless and a blatant abuse of the process of law and misuse of the provisions SC/ST Act. The complainant has made use of the Act to blackmail petitioner No.1 and to wreak personal vengeance on the petitioners who were her superiors and office colleagues.
10. The above opinion is fortified by the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN (Dr.) vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (2018) SCC ONLINE SC 243 regarding abuse of provisions of the Act. In paras 67 and 68 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-
“We have already noted the working of the Act in the last three decades. It has been judicially acknowledged that there are instances of abuse of the Act by vested interests against political opponents in Panchayat, Municipal or other elections, to settle private civil disputes arising out of property, monetary disputes, employment disputes and seniority disputes. It may be noticed that by way of rampant misuse complaints are ‘largely being filed particularly against Public Servants/quasi judicial/judicial officers with oblique motive for satisfaction of vested interests’.
Innocent citizens are termed as accused, which is not intended by the legislature. The legislature never intended to use the Atrocities Act as an instrument to blackmail or to wreak personal vengeance. The Act is also not intended to deter public servants from performing their bona fide duties. Thus, unless exclusion of anticipatory bail is limited to genuine cases and inapplicable to cases where there is no prima facie case was made out, there will be no protection available to innocent citizens. Thus, limiting the exclusion of anticipatory bail in such cases is essential for protection of fundamental right of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences have turned out to be an abuse of process of Court and therefore in order to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the pending proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioners in Spl.Case.No.45/2016 (Crime No.98/2015) on the file of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-