IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9453/2017 A/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.942/2019 IN CRL.P. 9453/2017: BETWEEN:
1. MUNIYAPPA S/O SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE NO-562 149.
2. JAYARAMAIAH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
3. MUNIRAJU S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
4. ERANNA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
5. HARISH S/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
6. SHYAMANA S/O MUNISHYAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
7. DWARAKISH S/O SHAYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
8. JAGGESH S/O SHAYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
9. BYRANNA S/O LATE PILLAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
10. CHANDRANNA S/O LATE PILLAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
11. ANJINAPPA S/O LATE PILLAPPAYA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
12. BABU S/O BYRANNA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
13. NAVEEN S/O CHANDRANNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
14. RAVIKUMAR S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
15. KEMPANNA S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
16. NAGESH S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
17. RAMASWAMY S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
18. DINESH S/O BYRANNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
19. PRABHAKARA S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
20. DIWAKAR S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
(BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY BAGALUR POLICE MANDYA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE.
2. SHOBA W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE – 562 149.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1;
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS SRI. PRABASH H.C., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN SPL.C.NO.76/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU (IN CR.NO.29/2013 OF BAGALUR POLICE) BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
IN CRL.P.942/2019: BETWEEN:
P.M. NAGARAJU S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS BANDIKODIGEHALLY VILLAGE, JALA HBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE NO.577 001.
(BY SRI. PRAKASHA H.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY BAGALUR POLICE BENGALORE, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PIN CODE – 560 001.
2. SMT. MALLA W/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS BANDIKODIGEHALLI B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PIN CODE NO: 577 001.
3. ERANNA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS BANDIKODIGEHALLY VILLAGE ... PETITIONER B.K. PALYA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK PIN CODE NO: 577 001.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1;
... RESPONDENTS SRI. C.N. RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND 3) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.2528/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.27/2013 OF BANGALORE POLICE BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354A, 354D, 324 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These two petitions are filed for quashing of proceedings pending in C.C.No.2528/2013 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A) & (D), 324 of IPC and Spl.C.C.No.76/2013 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) & (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and by the consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties they are taken up together for final disposal since a joint memo has been filed stating that matter has been amicably settled and both complainants as well as accused persons having agreed for the proceedings being quashed.
2. Since Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act), has been invoked, arguments addressed by the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned HCGP have been heard. Perused the records.
3. Complainant - second respondent in Crl.P.No.942/2019 lodged a complaint on 11.03.2013 at 12.50 hrs with Bagalur Police Station alleging that she was teased and unwarranted marks were made by accused though he knew that she was married and was often sending chits and called her on her mobile and as such, she informed her husband who in-turn he along with one Mr. Harish went to the house of accused (Sri.Nagaraj) to enquire into the said incident and at that point of time, accused had assaulted her husband with a sharp weapon resulting in injuries being sustained. Hence, she sought for suitable action being taken against accused (Sri.Nagaraj).
4. Said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.27/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A) & (D) and 307 of IPC. After investigation charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A) & (D) and 324 of IPC in C.C.No.2528/2013, which proceedings is pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli.
5. The wife of above said Sri.Nagaraj - Smt.Shobha lodged a complaint on 12.03.2013 alleging that accused persons had trespassed into their house on 11.03.2013 at 9.30 a.m. and questioned them for having constructed the house near the house of accused persons on the ground that they should not construct it since they belong to scheduled tribes and they had also assaulted them and had attempted to outrage the modesty of the complainant. Said complaint came to be lodged on the next date of previous incident which had taken place on 11.03.2013 complaint lodged by wife of Nagaraj on 12.03.2013 at 18.15 hrs before Bagaluru Police was registered in Crime No.29/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) & (xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act. For quashing of these proceedings petitioners (accused person in both cases) are before this Court.
6. Today parties have filed a joint memo stating thereunder that at the intervention of villagers they have compromised the matter and have agreed not to quarrel with each other in future and respective complainants present before Court have also stated that they have no objection for proceedings being quashed.
7. Respective complainants have also filed affidavits reiterating the contents of joint memo.
Complainants have also submitted that they have no objection for proceedings being quashed. To establish the identities of respective parties, a memo is filed enclosing the photocopies of identity cards issued by statutory authority. In token of having identified the parties present before Court, respective learned Advocates have also affixed their signatures to the joint memo.
8. Having regard to the nature of dispute relating to construction of house, which is having more of civil flavour and also the fact that Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of GIAN SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be quashed even though victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute on the ground that such offences are not private in nature and it is against the society and it would have a serious impact on the society. When fact on hand and examined, in the instance case, except an omnibus statement made in the complaint lodged by Smt.Shobha that accused persons had used caste name against her to abuse her, there is no other allegation with regard to complainant being abused in public view by using her caste name. Hence, it cannot be gainsaid by the prosecution that Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act is attracted. In fact, in the complaint itself she has stated that accused persons trespassed into her house and abused inside the house. Thus, it would emerge from the complaint that such allegation is not made in a public place or in public view. Hence, Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act definitely would not be attracted. Insofar as Section 3(1)(x) is concerned as noticed hereinabove it is an omnibus statement and charge sheet material do not disclose about such assault made by accused to outrage the modesty of complainant. Thus, even if the allegations made in the complaint were to remain unrebutted, it would not end in any conviction of accused persons and as such, continuation of proceedings against accused persons would be an exercise in futility and it would not serve any fruitful purpose. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that proceedings are to be quashed as sought for by taking into consideration the joint memo filed and affidavits filed by the respective complainants, whereunder they have stated that they do not intend to prosecute the complaint filed by them. For these reasons continuation of proceedings before the Court below would result in reading a dead-end and it would not serve any fruitful purpose. On the other hand if the proceedings are allowed to be continued, it would be waste of precious judicial time.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Crl.P.Nos.9453/2017 and 942/2019 are allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioners in C.C.No.2528/2013 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A) & (D), 324 of IPC and proceedings pending in Spl.C.C.No.76/2013 registered against said petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) & (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, are quashed and all petitioners are acquitted of aforesaid offences.
SD/- JUDGE DR