IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9028 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
MR MALLIKARJUNA REDDY S/O MUKUNDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, EX.PRESIDENT OF KOF, CHITRADURGA TOWN, R/O BELLIBATLU, PAVAGADA TALUK-577501. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: P N HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01 2. MR. KADATHI THIPPESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3371/24, KUVEMPUNAGAR MCC BLACK, OPP SHANKARALEELA KALYANA MANTAPA, DAVANGERE-577001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1 VARUN J.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.634/2016 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(10) OF SC/ST (POA) AND SEC.506 OF IPC AND PENDING INVESTIGATION ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE PENDING OF II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSION COURT, CHITRADURGA DIST., CHITRADURGA.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.634/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC/ST Act) and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that as per the averments made in the complaint, the alleged incident has taken place on 03.10.2016, but the complaint is filed after an inordinate delay of 1½ months on 18.11.2016. There is no satisfactory explanation for the said delay. Further, he submits that the petitioner herein had challenged the nomination of the respondent/complainant as nominated Director of Chitradurga Oil Seeds Producers Cooperative Society Limited. The instant complaint therefore is a sequel to the said proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The complaint is malafide and vexatious and on this ground alone, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
3. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GORIGE PENTAIAH vs. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 SC (SUPP) 634, learned counsel has emphasized that the complainant has not alleged anywhere in the complaint that the petitioner/accused was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that he was insulted and intimidated by the petitioner in public view. In the absence of this basic averment , the charge levelled against the petitioner under the provisions of SC/ST Act, cannot be sustained. Lastly, he submitted that as on the date of registration of the complaint, The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was amended by The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (1 of 2016) and Section 3(1) (x) of the Act was substituted, as such, the offence could not have been registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the old Act. Thus he seeks to quash the proceedings.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the FIR prima-facie disclose the commission of the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act. There are clear averments that the incident has taken place in public view. There is also allegation of threat to respondent No.2 and therefore, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
5. Insofar as the incident is concerned, there are specific allegations in the complaint that the incident had taken place on 03.10.2016 during the Board meeting of the Chitradurga Oil Seeds Producers Co-operative Society Limited. Further, it is stated that on the same day, at about 1.30 p.m., the incident had taken place in public view, in the presence of other directors viz., B. Hanumantharaya, H.R. Thirthankara Murthy and C.
Baramappa. The complainant has narrated the specific date, time and place of the incident. Therefore, at this juncture, it cannot be said that the allegations made against the petitioner are false and baseless. No-doubt, prior to the alleged incident, the petitioner herein had filed a writ petition challenging the nomination of respondent No.2/complainant. The same can be either a motive for commission of the offence or a reason for false implication, but, without investigating into the matter, solely on the basis of the said plea, this Court cannot jump to the conclusion that the complaint is lodged only as a sequel to the writ petition filed by the petitioner against respondent No.2/complainant. As long as there are allegations attracting criminal offence, the matter necessarily requires to be investigated. Even though the FIR is registered under the provisions of SC/ST Act, 1989, but the facts alleged in the complaint prima-facie constitute the ingredients of offence under Section 3(1) (s) of SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015(1 of 2016). Quoting wrong provision of law cannot be a reason to quash the entire FIR. It is for the authorities to submit the charge sheet under proper provision of law, if the evidence collected during investigation satisfies the ingredients of the said offence. As a result, the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
For the above reasons, the petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2018 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-