IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Crl.P. No. 5184/2014 BETWEEN :
1. Nagesh Kumar S/o. Late Narayan Mogaveera Aged about 58 years R/a. Hebbagilu Mane No. 149/2, Markodu Swagath Road Koteshwara Village Kundapura Taluk Udupi Dist. – 576 201.
2. Smt. Sindhu W/o. Nagesh Kumar Aged about 53 years R/a. Hebbagilu Mane No. 149/2, Markodu Swagath Road Koteshwara Village Kundapura Taluk Udupi Dist. – 576 201. … PETITIONERS (By Sri. H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, Adv.) AND :
1. Shankara Aged about 42 years S/o. late Mutha Srimathi Nilaya Swagath Road, Markodu Koteshwara Village Kundapura Taluk Udupi District-567 201.
2. The State of Karnataka Rep. by Kundapura Police Station, Udupi District – 576 201. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R-2 Sri. Vishwajith Shetty, Adv., for R-1) ---
This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Sl.C. 23/2014 on the pending file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Udupi at Udupi for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and etc.
This Crl.P. coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the charge sheet laid against them for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.
1 (complainant) was a member of Scheduled Caste community. He was called by petitioner No. 1 to pluck coconuts from his garden. The complainant did not respond to the request of petitioner No. 1. On 16.03.2014 while the complainant was passing in front of house of petitioners, the petitioners as well as the other accused persons are alleged to have restrained him and abused him in vulgar language calling out his caste, assaulted him and also threatened him.
3. Based on the complaint filed by respondent No.1 a case was registered against 3 accused persons for the above offences. After investigation charge sheet has been laid only against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The abuses alleged to have been hurled at the complainant do not make any reference to the caste of the complainant and as such invocation of provisions of Section 13(1)(x) of the SC and the ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is malafide and is intended solely to foist false charges against the petitioners. Even with regard to the other offences the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the material collected by the investigating agency do not constitute the ingredients of the said offences and hence prosecution of the petitioners is sheer abuse of process of Court and therefore, liable to be quashed.
5. Refuting the submissions, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 as well as learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No. 2 have argued in support of the charge sheet laid against the petitioners.
6. The only question that requires to be considered is:
Whether the allegations made in the charge sheet attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC and the ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?
7. Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 reads as under:
3(1)(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
8. According to the prosecution the incident in question had taken place while the complainant was passing in front of the house of petitioner No. 1. It is not clear from the charge sheet as to whether the said offence has taken place in the public street or inside the premises of the petitioners. There is nothing in the charge sheet to suggest that the petitioners herein had gone out of their house to assault or abuse the complainant. Therefore it can be gathered that the alleged incident has taken place within the premises of the petitioners. From this circumstance, it is difficult to hold that the alleged incident has taken place in public view as to constitute the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
9. Even with regard to the alleged abuse is concerned, specific case of the prosecution is that during the incident the petitioners abused the complainant calling him as `koosale’. The learned counsel appearing for the parties are unable to point out the real meaning of the term `koosale’. No material is produced before the Court to show that `koosale’ relates to any caste falling within the list appended to Article 341 of the Constitution of India. Under the said circumstances there is absolutely no basis for the prosecution to contend that the alleged abuses are related to the caste of the complainant and are intended to belittle the complainant on account of his caste. As such, in my view, the allegation made in the complaint and the material produced along with the charge sheet do not constitute the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and to this extent the petition seeking quashment of the proceedings for the offence alleged under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and the ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 deserves to be allowed.
10. However insofar as the other accusations are concerned there are specific allegations that during the occurrence the complainant was assaulted and threatened by the petitioners. Though there is no specific material as to which of the accused persons assaulted the complainant, yet in view of the common allegations made against the petitioners which are sought to be substantiated by the statement of the complainant and other witnesses, in my view, it is not proper to quash the charge sheet insofar as offences under the provisions of IPC are concerned.
Accordingly, petitions are allowed in part. Charge sheet laid against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed. The proceedings shall continue against the petitioners only for the offences under the provisions of IPC. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek discharge on such grounds available under law before the trial Court.
Sd/- JUDGE.
LRS.