IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4738/2016
(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SMT.SANJEEVINI V.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.G.JAIRAJ & SRI.G.KUMAR, ADVOCATES FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.75/2016 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONENT POLICE AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3(1), 3(x) of SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND ALSO U/S.323, 448, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND SPL. J., FOR SC/ST ACT CASES, BANGALORE (CC-17).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners are before this court seeking to quash the FIR registered against them in Crime No.75/2016 by respondent No.1 police, for the alleged offences punishable under sections 323, 448, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST (POA) Act” for short).
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the records.
2. A reading of the complaint discloses that respondent No.2 had taken a shed from petitioner No.1 by executing an agreement on 11.03.2015. It is stated that, while complainant was working in his shed, petitioner No.1 came to his shed along with some unknown persons and abused him in vulgar language and sent him out of the shed and issued threats to his life.
3. Though in the complaint it is stated that along with petitioner No.1, some unknown persons had come to the shed, yet, complainant has sought action against petitioner No.1 and his son (petitioner No.2) and his son-in-law (petitioner No.3) and accordingly, FIR is registered against all the three petitioners. The complaint is silent as to the time of occurrence. It merely states that, on 11.03.2015, while complainant was working in the shed, the alleged incident had taken place. Failure of complainant to specify the time of incident leads to suspect the very genesis of the occurrence.
4. Be that as it may, FIR is registered under the provisions of section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. I do not find any averment in the complaint constituting the offences under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. There is nothing in the entire complaint to show that petitioner No.1 or the alleged strangers had abused complainant calling out his caste. It is the specific case of the complainant that alleged incident had taken place in the shed. Therefore, no incident having been taken place in public view, the very essential ingredients of section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act are not attracted to the facts of the case. Under the said circumstances, there was absolutely no basis for registration of FIR under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
5. Even with regard to the alleged offences under sections 323, 448, 504, 506 of IPC are concerned, undeniably the premises in question belonged to petitioner No.1. He was the owner of said premises. It is not the case of complainant that, in terms of the agreement entered into between him and petitioner No.1, he was prevented from entering into said premises or shed at any point of time. As a result, provisions of section 448 of IPC also are not applicable to the facts of the case.
6. There are no allegations whatsoever that, during the occurrence, petitioners had assaulted the complainant. In the absence of any such allegations, registration of FIR for alleged offence under section 323 of IPC suggests that, only to make out a false ground, provisions of the IPC are invoked in the FIR, without there being any allegation or material to support the said accusations.
7. Even with regard to the allegations pertaining to sections 504 and 506 of IPC are concerned, except making bald and general allegations that petitioners abused complainant, there are no materials to support the said accusations and hence, based on these allegations charges under section 504 or section 506 of IPC cannot be sustained.
8. The above discussion lead to the inference that the registration of FIR against the petitioners is ulteriorly motivated and appears to have been engineered to create a ground in the suit filed by complainant in O.S.No.2526/2016 for injunction and the counter suit filed by petitioner No.1 in O.S.No.2563/2016 for eviction of the complainant. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the clear view that the complainant has abused process of law by taking recourse to criminal law in respect of a civil dispute. As a result, proceedings initiated against the petitioners being illegal and abuse of process of court are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. The FIR registered against petitioners in Crime No.75/2016 and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss