IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2376/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI J. VEERABHADRA S/O. LATE PAPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS ADVOCATE R/AT 10TH CROSS, V.V.NAGARA KALLAHALLI EXTENSION MANDYA CITY MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401 … PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G.BHAGWAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEVARAJA POLICE MYSURU CITY MYSURU DISTRICT-570 001 2. SRI G.M.VEERABHADRA S/O. LATE MODE HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT-3) OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX (ENFORCEMENT) BIDARAM KRISHNAPPA ROAD MYSURU DISTRICT-570 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1; SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT/ DEVARAJA POLICE, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU DISTRICT IN CR.NO.59/2016 DATED 19.03.2016 (ANNEXURE-J) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r) OF THE SC/ST (POA) AMENDED ACT, 2015 AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned SPP-II appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and the learned Counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. He sought for certain information from the second respondent/complainant under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI’ for short). Since the information furnished by the second respondent was incomplete, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Competent Authority and obtained a direction against the second respondent requiring the second respondent to furnish the full particulars as sought for by the petitioner. The said order was passed on 10.03.2016 in proceedings No.
¸ÀASÉå:ªÁvÉdAD(eÁj)/ªÉÄÊ/ ªÀiÁºÀªÉÄÃ/ /15-16.
3. On 19.03.2016, the second respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner before Devaraja Police Station. Based on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered against the petitioner under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (‘the Act’ for short). The allegations made in the complaint are that on 17.03.2016 at about 12.30 noon, when the complainant/the second respondent along with one Sri N.Nanjundaswamy, the Tax Inspector working in his office were about to go out of the office, the petitioner herein met them and told the complainant that the information furnished by him is not proper and he questioned the complainant as to what was his further course of action. It is further stated that with intent to blackmail the complainant, the petitioner herein abused the complainant stating that by obtaining a Government job under reservation, he has become arrogant; he will complain to the Lokayukta and will put them behind bars and see that he would do bonded labour as done by their community earlier and threatened to teach him a lesson.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations on the face of it, do not disclose the commission of offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. There is nothing in the said complaint to indicate that the petitioner was knowing the caste of the complainant and nowhere, it is mentioned in the complaint that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is not indicated in the complaint that the alleged incident had taken place in public view so as to attract the alleged offence against the petitioner. Further, he submitted that the surrounding circumstances would indicate that on account of the petitioner herein having taken the legal action on account of deficient information given by the second respondent, the complaint is obliquely motivated. Hence, it is contended that initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed at the hands of the Court. In support of his arguments, he has relied on a decision in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. reported in 2009 Crl. L. J. 350.
5. Refuting the above contention, the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the allegations made in the complaint clearly indicate that the petitioner was in the knowledge of the caste of the complainant. The allegations made therein have specific reference to the caste of the complainant. The threat issued by the petitioner that he would ensure that the second respondent would do bonded labour as earlier itself is sufficient to make out the offence against the petitioner under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act and hence, there is no ground to quash the complaint.
6. Learned SPP-II has also argued in support of the impugned action and would submit that in the complaint, it is specifically stated that the complainant is a Dalit Officer and the said averment is sufficient to bring the allegations within the purview of the Act.
7. Upon considering the rival contentions and on going through the FIR and the complaint lodged by the second respondent, I am of the view that the allegations made against the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. As already stated above, the circumstances in which the alleged complaint came to be lodged would itself indicate that much before lodging the complaint, the Competent Authority has issued a direction to the second respondent/complainant to furnish the required information sought for by the petitioner. It is stated in the complaint that the said information was furnished by him to the petitioner under a registered post on 18.03.2016. But according to the complainant, on 17.03.2016 itself, the petitioner had come to his office and abused him calling out his caste. In the complaint, he has stated that the petitioner abused him saying that the information produced is not proper and accurate. When the petitioner himself has approached the Competent Authority by filing an appeal under the provisions of RTI Act and has obtained a direction against the second respondent, it is highly improbable that the petitioner would approach the office of the second respondent only to inform him that the information furnished by him was deficient. In view of the order suffered by the second respondent even without the request of the petitioner, the second respondent was bound to furnish the said information.
Therefore, there was absolutely no occasion for the petitioner to confront the second respondent as alleged in the complaint.
8. The further allegation made against the petitioner is also in my view, does not bring the case within the ambit of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. Section 3(1)(r) of the Act reads as under:
“3. xxxxxx (1) xxxxxx (r) intentionally insults or intimates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;”
9. Going by the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged incident, even if it is assumed as true, has taken place in the context of the refusal of the second respondent to furnish the information as sought for by the petitioner and not with an intention to belittle the second respondent on account of his caste. There is nothing in the entire complaint to indicate that the petitioner was aware of the caste of the complainant. There is also no specific averment in the complaint that the second respondent is a member of the Scheduled Caste. No doubt, in the subsequent paragraphs of the complaint, it is stated that the second respondent and Sri N.Nanjundaswamy were Dalit Officers, but the said assertion does not relate to the incident in question. It is alleged that the petitioner herein was in the habit of taking the photographs of the second respondent with intent to black mail him. But the complaint is not registered for the said offence and no material has been produced in support of the said accusation which again indicates that baseless allegations are made in the complaint only to strengthen the charges leveled against the petitioner. A reading of the complaint would indicate that it is a sequel to the proceedings initiated against the respondent under the RTI Act and not on account of any intention on the part of the petitioner to humiliate or to intimidate him. As already stated above, the favourable order was already obtained by the petitioner from the Competent Authority vide Annexure – G, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to resort to intimidatory tactics as alleged in the FIR. Thus on consideration of all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the clear opinion that the facts alleged in the complaint even if accepted on their face value as true, do not constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner being false, vexatious and obliquely motivated are liable to be quashed in exercise of the power under Section 482 of CR.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered against the petitioner in Crime No.59/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the petition, IA.No.2/2016 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE LB