IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4570 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAVINDRA PRATAP S/O PRATAP ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
2. SMT.RANI PRATAP W/O PRATAP ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.14, GROUND FLOOR, I MAIN ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. .. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION, THROUGH S.H.O. REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT.P.MUNIRATHNA RETD. A.C.P.W/O LATE VIJAYA KUMAR, R/AT NO.14,GROUND FLOOR I MAIN ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL SPP FOR R-1 SRI. E.R. GAJENDRA NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2(ABSENT)) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.62/2017 REGISTERED BY THE HIGH GROUNDS POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3(1)(r)(s) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (POA) ACT AND SEC.430 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, FOR THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 (CCH-17), BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioners are aggrieved by the registration of the FIR against them in Crime No.62/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (r) & (s) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance 2014 and Section 430 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent and has not addressed any arguments. Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the son of the complainant was a tenant under the husband of petitioner No.2. The son of the complainant was in arrears of rent and a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was filed against him in O.S.No.8070/16 and in that background, a false complaint has been lodged by the complainant alleging that the complainant was abused calling out her caste and that the water supply to her house was interrupted by the petitioners. Learned counsel contended that none of the allegations made in the FIR attract the ingredients of Clauses (r) and (s) of Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. According to the complainant the alleged incident had taken place inside the house and not in public view. So far as the allegations of obstruction of water supply is concerned, the complainant was not a tenant under the petitioners and therefore, absolutely there was no occasion for the complainant to hurl abuses against the petitioners.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the judgment in O.S.No.8070/16 wherein the parties have entered into a compromise and the husband of the petitioner No.2 has given up the arrears of rent from the son of the complainant and the son of the complainant has handed over vacant possession to the husband of the petitioner No.2.
5. The above circumstances, clearly indicate that the alleged incident has taken place in the back-drop of the civil suit filed by the husband of petitioner No.2 for eviction of the son of the complainant wherein the complainant also resided. The allegations made in the complaint even if accepted as true do not make out the ingredients of the offences under Section 3 (1) (r) & (s) of the Act. Clauses (r) and (s) of Section 3(1) of the Act reads as under :-
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Schedule Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;
6. According to the complainant the alleged incident had taken place in the tenanted house and therefore, the essential constituents of the above sections having not been attracted, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences cannot be sustained.
In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Crime No.62/2017 pending on the file of II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are quashed.
Since the main petition itself has been disposed of, I.A.1/2018 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE rs