IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4490/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Mudegowdar Girish, S/o Mudegowder Parameshwarappa, Aged about 52 years, Business, R/o Vidya Nagara, Davanagere District.
2. Shivaganga Basavaraj, S/o Verappa D., Aged about 40 years, Corporator, City Municipal Corporation, Davanagere, R/o Anjaneya Badavane, Davanagere District.
3. Hemmanabeturu Shashidar @ Sashidhar B.R., S/o Revanasiddappa B.S., Aged about 38 years, R/o Shivakumar Swamy Badavane, Davanagere District.
4. Lokikere Nagaraj K.H., S/o Hanumanthappa K., Aged about 46 years, Business, R/o Vidya Nagara, Davanagere District.
5. Shyagale Jayakumar @ M.D. Jayakumar, S/o Devendrappa H., Aged about 47 years, Business, R/o Taralubalu Badavane, Davanagere.
6. Pavadaranganahalli Umapathi M. @ Pavadaranganahalli Umesh, S/o K. Maghadevappa, Aged about 49 years, Business, R/o Taralubalu Badavane, Davanagere.
7. Aluru Channabasappa K.S., S/o Siddabasappa, Aged about 49 years, Agriculturist, R/o Aluru Village, Davanagere Taluk and District.
8. T.M. Honnuru Muniyappa, S/o H.T. Maheshwarappa, Aged about 63 years, Agriculturist, R/o Honnuru Village, Davanagere Taluk and District.
9. Shyagale B.G. Ramesh, S/o J.B. Jayadevappa, Aged about 42 years, Business, R/o LIC Colony, Davanagere.
10. T.K. Veeresh @ Honnur Veeresh , S/o Kadleppa, Aged about 63 years, Agriculturist, R/o Honnuru Village, Davanagere Taluk and District.
11. Kashipura Siddesh, S/o K.P. Revanasiddappa, Aged about 48 years, Agriculturist, R/o Taralabalu Badavane, Davanagere District.
12. Dodda Bangkar @ Kurudi Banakar, S/o Narappa D.N., Aged about 44 years, Agriculturist, R/o Anjeneya Badavane, Davanagere.
13. Karibasappa Beturu, S/o B. Basappa, Aged about 52 years, Agriculturist, R/o Ele Beturu Village, Davanagere District.
14. Shivaganga Shrinivas B.V., Son of Veerappa D., Aged about 45 years, Business, R/o Anjeneya Badavane, Davanagere District.
15. G.N. Sangappa, S/o Neelakantappa B., Aged about 65 years, Business, R/o Gangana Katte Village, Davanagere District.
16. K.P. Ravi Shamanuru, S/o K. Panchappa, Aged about 52 years, Business, R/o Siddaveerappa Badavane, Davanagere District.
17. Gangadhar Anaberu, S/o Maheshwarappa, Aged about 55 years, Business, R/o Taralabalu Badavane, Davanagere District.
18. Chandan K.N., S/o S. Siddappa, Aged about 25 years, Student, R/o Taralabalu Badavane, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main, Davanagere District.
19. Annappa N.G., S/o Late Gowdara Rudrappa, Aged about 65 years, Agriculturist, R/o Naraganahalli Village, Davanagere District.
20. G.D. Guruswamy, S/o Dyamappa, Aged about 56 years, Business, R/o # 1659/21, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Taralubalu Badavane, Davanagere District.
21. Akshay B.T., S/o B.K. Thippeswamy, Aged about 25 years, Agriculturist, R/o Shamanuru Road, Davanagere.
22. Nagaraj @ Simeenne Nagaraj, S/o Mahadevappa, Aged about 50 years, Business, R/o # 1675/186, Siddarameshwara Badavane, Nituvalli, Davnagere.
23. M.K. Chidanandappa, S/o M.K. Kaliappa, Aged about 57 years, Agriculturist, R/o Iguru Village, Davanagere District.
24. H.B. Murugeshappa, S/o Basappa Hedni, Aged about 68 years, Agriculturist, R/o Hedni Village, Davnagere District. … Petitioners (By Sri Aruna Shyam M., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka by Inspector of Police, Extension Police Station, Davanagere. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Dr. Y. Ramappa, S/o Late Yalappa, Former President Zilla Panchayat, # 1099/26, II Main, II Cross, Taralubalu Layout, Davanagere – 577 005. ... Respondents (By Sri Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R-1; Sri H.S. Lokapal Rao, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal Petition is filed u/S 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to Quash the FIR and complaint in Cr. No.66/2019 registered by Davanagere Extension Police (learned I JMFC Court, Davanagere) for the alleged offences p/u/s 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s), 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 143, 149, 147, 506, 504 of IPC and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court, made the following:-
ORDER The petitioners are challenging FIR No.66/2019 registered in Davangere Extension P.S., on 26.04.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the ‘SC/ST Act’ for short) and Sections 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of IPC.
2. Shri. Aruna Shyam, learned advocate for petitioners urged following grounds in support of this petition:
that on 23.04.2019, the second respondent abused petitioners and their community. Accordingly, petitioners got registered FIR No.46/2019 on 25.04.2019 in Mayakonda P.S. for offences punishable under Sections 153, 153A, 295A, 504 and 506 of IPC. As a counterblast, second respondent filed a complaint on 26.04.2019 at 21:00 Hrs. alleging aforesaid offences;
that the entire episode has started with second respondent abusing the petitioners and their community. In order to harass the petitioners, complainant has filed FIR No.66/2019 on the following day i.e., on 26.04.2019 at 21:00 Hrs. Therefore, it is a clear case of afterthought and amounts to abuse of process of law; and that the respondent police are not following the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another1. Therefore, petitioners are exposed to curtailment of their liberty in view of the provisions contained in the SC/ST Act with regard to anticipatory bail.
3. In support of his contention, Shri Aruna Shyam, has placed reliance on the authority in the case of Km. Hema Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others.2 With the above submissions, he prayed for allowing this petition.
4. Shri. H.S.Lokapal Rao, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has raised following contentions;
1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 2 AIR 2014 SC 1066 Para 28 and 29 that petitioners have filed the FIR No.46/2019 on 25.05.2019 at 8:15 p.m., belatedly in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 23.04.2019 at 14:30 hrs;
that the allegations contained in the complaint requires investigation by the police and the investigation is in progress.
Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
6. The first contention urged by Shri. Aruna Shyam is that there is a delay on the part of second respondent in lodging the complaint. The petitioners have lodged the complaint on 25.04.2018 in respect of the incident alleged to have taken place on 23.04.2019, whereas second respondent has filed the complaint on the following day. Thus, both parties have filed the complaints belatedly. The next contention is that the complaint filed by second respondent is a counterblast to the complaint filed by the petitioners. The said aspect requires to be examined during the course of enquiry or trial.
7. So far as the authority cited by Shri Aruna Shyam is concerned, in the said case, the Apex Court was considering the case of Anticipatory Bail in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place in the State of Uttar Pradesh where the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., were not made applicable as per Act 16 of 1976. Shri Aruna Shyam further contended that though the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are not applicable, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can mould the relief in appropriate cases.
8. It is relevant to note that in the case of Km. Hema Mishra (supra) the entire provision namely, Section 438 Cr.P.C. was not available in view of Act No.16 of 1976. In the case on hand, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceedings on the grounds stated hereinabove. The complaints lodged on either side contain allegations against each other and both the complaints have been filed belatedly.
9. Insofar as the last contention of Shri Aruna Shyam that police are not following the guidelines issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar(supra), it is needless to observe that the directions contained in Para 11 of the said judgment are binding throughout the country and every police officer is duty bound to follow the same in letter and spirit and it is accordingly directed.
10. In the result, no ground is made out to interfere by exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed subject to the direction with regard to following the directions contained in Arnesh Kumar made in paragraph No.10 above.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-