IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7918/2018 BETWEEN:
1. HEMANTH KUMAR H S/O HONNA NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.778, BEHIND CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, HESSARAGATTA BANGALORE-560088.
2. LAKSHMISHA S/O HONNA NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.778, BEHIND CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, HESSARAGATTA BANGALORE-560088.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.HASHMATH PASHA, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. RANJAN KUMAR P, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. ANJANADEVI W/O ANJANEYA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT FARM ROAD HESARGHATTA VILLAGE AND POST, HESARAGHATTA BANGALORE-560 088.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. B. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.296/2018 II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND SESSIONS COURT, BENGALURU OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT, SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 448, 504, 323, 354, 511 R/W 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(x) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri.
Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior counsel along with Sri. Ranjan Kumar P, Advocate appearing for petitioners, Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent- State and Sri. B. Ananda, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.
3. First respondent herein has registered as FIR in Crime No.296/2018 against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 323, 354, 511 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’] on the basis of the complaint lodged by second respondent, whereunder she has alleged that petitioners- accused owed her money; on demand being made by her to refund the amount, accused got enraged and on 27.09.2018 at about 9.20 p.m. when she was alone at her home, accused persons barged in to her house, assaulted her and abused her by using foul and filthy language and also by taking her caste name, attempted to burn her by pouring kerosene. On these grounds, she lodged the complaint and FIR has been registered against petitioners for the offences punishable as aforesaid.
4. Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioners has raised several contentions or urged several grounds. However, thrust of his arguments primarily revolves around invocation of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act against petitioners, contending interalia that for invoking said provision, primary enquiry ought to have to be held and said incident should have occurred in a public place or abuse should have taken place in public view/ gaze. This ingredient even according to complainant has not been there, invoking of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is erroneous and as such, complaint is liable to be quashed. On these grounds, he prays for quashing of said proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned Advocates appearing for respondents have supported the initiation of prosecution against petitioners.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, it would clearly indicate that any person who intentionally insulted or intimidated/ intend to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in any place, within a public view, would be punishable for having committed atrocity on such person. Expression used in the said Section would clearly indicate that any place is followed by the words “Public View”. Thus, a place where the public can view, such abuse would be sufficient for said section being attracted. In this background, when allegation made in the complaint is looked into, it would clearly disclose that entire incident took place inside the house of the complainant. Hence, invoking of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the police was not justified or in other words, continuation of the proceedings against petitioners for the said offence would be an abuse of process of law. However, with regard to invoking the provisions of Indian Penal Code, no opinion is expressed by this Court since it is likely to prejudice the rights of the parties and same has to be thrashed out after trail.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER (1) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(2) Crime No.296/2018 registered by first respondent - Soladevanahalli Police Station against petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stands quashed. However, FIR registered in Crime No.296/2018 for other offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 323, 354, 511 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against petitioners shall proceed and no opinion is expressed in that regard.
SD/- JUDGE RU