IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4485/2015 BETWEEN:
SRI IMRAN KHAN @ BABU @ YOUSUFF SHARIFF SON OF DASTAGIR SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PROPRIETOR UMRAH DEVELOPERS NO.13/1, MILLERS TANK BUND ROAD KAVERIAPPA LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 087 (BY SRI M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, ADVOCATE FOR MS. IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALSOORGATE POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY – 560 002 2. SRI.L.C.NAGARAJ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH KANDAYA BHAVANA K.G.ROAD BANGALORE CITY – 560 009 … PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. S.P.P. FOR R1; SRI K.M.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT)) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.245/2015 OF HALSOOR GATE P.S., REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 3(1)(10) OF SC AND ST ACT AND SEC.323, 504, 506, 353 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH- 17), BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondent no.1. Counsel for respondent no.2 is absent and has not addressed any arguments.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of FIR against him in Crime No.245/2015 under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short) and Sections 323, 353, 504 & 506 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegations made in the complaint even if accepted on face value do not make out the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act or under Sections 323, 353, 504 & 506 of IPC. The complainant has not disclosed his caste and there is no averment as to the caste of the accused person. The alleged utterances are not reproduced in the complaint. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2012)8 SCC 795] wherein it is held that a duty is cast on the Court to verify the averments made in the complaint to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the Act has been prima facie made out and in other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons could be prosecuted for the offence under the Act. In the instant case, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the absence of any such basic averments, the registration of FIR under the provisions of the Act and under Sections 323, 353, 504 & 506 of IPC is wholly illegal and abuse of the process of Court.
4. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent no.1 argued in support of the impugned action contending that the matter is under investigation. The allegations made in the complaint prima facie attract the basic ingredients of the offences, and hence, there is no ground to stall the investigation at this stage.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondent no.1 and on going through the material on record, it is seen that the FIR is registered against the petitioner on 25.06.2015 in respect of the incident that is alleged to have taken place on 24.06.2015. Complainant was the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division. It is stated that at about 4.30 p.m. when he was in the office, the accused/petitioner herein came to his office and abused him calling out his caste and came forward to assault him if his recommendation was not forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner. Even though in the complaint it is stated that the petitioner herein abused him in vulgar language and by his caste, the alleged utterances made by the petitioner referring to caste are not forthcoming in the complaint. It is also not specified as to what caste the complainant belonged to and what was the caste of the petitioner. Such general allegations cannot make out the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
6. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act reads as under:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- … … … (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; … … … shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”
A plain reading of the above section indicates that in order to render the accused liable for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, insults hurled against the victim should be directed with an intention to humiliate and belittle the victim on account of his caste. In the instant case, a reading of the complaint does not disclose that any such abuses were made by the petitioner herein touching the caste of the complainant/respondent no.2 with an intention to insult and humiliate him on account of his caste; on the other hand, reading of the complaint would disclose that the petitioner/accused wanted respondent no.2 to refer his representation to the Deputy Commissioner without any delay. In that view of the matter, in the absence of essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act having been spelt out in the complaint, registration of FIR for the said offence cannot be sustained. However, insofar as other offences under the provisions of IPC are concerned, there are sufficient material to show that an untoward incident had taken place in the office of respondent no.2. The complaint is signed by as many as 23 Advocates as eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, it is for the investigating officer to inquire into the said incident constituting the offences under Sections 323, 353, 504 & 506 of IPC as shown in the FIR.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. FIR registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is quashed. Investigation in respect of the alleged offences under Sections 323, 353, 504 & 506 of IPC shall proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.