IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8026 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
MEGHANA BHATT S D/O. SHRINGESWAR BHATT, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D.NO. 13028, NEHARU NAGAR, MANDYA-571 401. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT: RAMA R IYER, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE BY MANDYA EAST POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. NAGARAJU K S/O. LATE KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT IN FRONT OF R.T.O. OFFICE, KALAPPA BADAVANE, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA, KARNATAKA-571401. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI: A.S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.157/2016 LODGED IN MANDYA EAST POLICE STATION AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., MANDYA DIST., MANDYA.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner and second respondent were in love for about five years. According to the second respondent, since 10.07.2016, petitioner refused to marry him for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and hence, he lodged a report before Mandya East police alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating punishable under section 420 Indian Penal Code. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner was sending frequent messages to the second respondent and on 10.05.2016, the petitioner threatened him that if he thought of marrying any other person, he is likely to meet his death. According to the complainant, these threats amount to an offence under section 506 Indian Penal Code and since the petitioner abused and refused to marry him, she has committed offence under Section 3(1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for short ‘ the Act’).
2. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have gone through the complaint as well as the contentions urged in the petition.
3. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner belongs to forward community and the complainant/second respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste. According to the complainant, he and the petitioner were in love for about five years and till 10.07.2016, the petitioner promised to marry him. The averments made in the complaint clearly indicate that for about five years, the caste of the complainant was not a barrier for the love affairs between the parties. It is only when the petitioner refused to marry him, the complainant has come up with the allegation that on account of his caste, the petitioner refused to marry him. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioner was not aware of caste of the second respondent when she carried on love affair with him for about five years. He has even gone to the extent of stating that both of them had agreed to marry. Under the said circumstances, it cannot be accepted that solely because of caste of the second respondent, the petitioner has refused to marry the second respondent. Even assuming that the petitioner has refused to marry the second respondent, the same does not constitute any criminal offence either under Indian Penal Code or under the provisions of the Act. As such, initiation of proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 420 Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained.
4. Insofar as the alleged offence under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the case of the second respondent is that on 10.05.2016, and prior thereto, the petitioner sent messages to him threatening him not to marry any other person other than the petitioner. This statement is contradictory to the earlier statement made in the complaint that till 10.07.2016, they were in love with each other. Under the said circumstances, even assuming that there were exchange of messages between the parties, the same were sent during the period when both of them were carrying on their relationship on the promise of marrying each other. That apart, even if it is believed that there was such a threat by the petitioner, it only goes to show that as on that day, the petitioner was intending to marry the second respondent and did not want him to get married with any other lady. Said threat therefore cannot be construed as an offence under Section 506 Indian Penal Code. In order to constitute an offence under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, the accused should commit criminal intimidation within the meaning of Section 503 Indian Penal Code. Section 503 Indian Penal Code defines criminal intimidation as under:
“503. Criminal Intimidation- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
The allegations made in the FIR do not attract the ingredients of Section 503 of Indian Penal Code; as a result, even the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.
5. Insofar as the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act is concerned, the allegations made in the complaint do not even remotely relate to the ingredients of the said offence. To constitute an offence punishable under section 3(1) (x) of the Act, the offender should abuse or insult or humiliate a person on account of his caste in public view. In the instant case, the relationship between the parties itself falsifies the said allegation. The very fact that the petitioner being a member of the forward community was carrying on love affair with the second respondent for more than five years goes to show that the petitioner was least affected on account of caste of the second respondent. There is no allegation in the entire complaint that the petitioner abused the second respondent calling out his caste in any public view. On the other hand, the case of the second respondent is that the petitioner was sending messages to his mobile phone personally. It was a personal correspondence between the parties and therefore, in the absence of any material to show that the alleged abuses were hurled in public view with intent to insult and humiliate second respondent, in my view, even the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act is not made out. Consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence being illegal and abuse of process of Court is liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioner in Cr.No.157/2016 on the file of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya District are quashed. In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/18 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-