1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH R DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.103145 OF2022C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.103100 OF2022IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.103145 OF2022BETWEEN: DR. RAGHAVENDRA B. NAYAK S/O BHEEMAPPA NAYAK AGED ABOUT41YEARS OCC.: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY DIMHANS, DHARWAD R/O.H.NO.1 GROUP A DIMHANS STAFF QUARTERS, OPPOSITE TO GERMAN HOSPITAL NARAYANPUR DHARWAD – 580 008. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SUNIL S. DESAI REPRESENTED BY SRI KUSHAL N. KAMBLE, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY2THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD – 580 008. 2 . DR. RAMESH BABU S/O LATE B. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT47YEARS OCC.: PROFESSOR RAICHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE R/O. No.30, DOCTOR QUARTERS RIMS, RAICHR, DIST. RAICHUR – 584 101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF COMPLAINT IN CRIME No.202/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION4iii) OF PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 1955, SECTION31) (p), 3(1)(q), 3(1) (r) , 3 (1) (za) (E), 3 (1) (zc), 3(2) (VA), 3(2) (vii) OF THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT2015AND SECTION217R/W34OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF2D ADD. DISTRICT SESSION COURT DHARWAD, HUBLI DHARWAD SUB URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SAME. AND FOR FURTHER AND OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.103100 OF2022BETWEEN: DR. MAHESH DESAI S/O SHRIKANTAPPA3AGED ABOUT55YEARS IN CHARGE DIRECTOR DHARWAD INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES BELAGAVI ROAD, DHARWAD – 580 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD – 580 001. 2 . DR. RAMESH BABU S/O LATE B.BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT47YEARS PROFESSOR RAICHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE R/O. NO.30, DOCTOR QUARTERS RIMS, RAICHUR DIST. RAICHUR – 584 101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF COMPLAINT IN CRIME No.202/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION4(III) OF PROTECTION4OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT1955 SECTION31) (P) 3(1) (Q) 3(1) (R) 3(1)(ZA) (E) 3(1) (ZC) 3(2) (VA) 3(2) (VII) OF THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT2015AND SECTION217R/W34OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF2D ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT DHARWAD SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION DHARWAD ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SAME IN R/O ACCUSED NO.1. THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER
S ON1010.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER
The petitioners in both the petitions call in question registration of a crime in Crime No.202/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 4 (iii) of Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, Section 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(1)(zc), 3(2) (va), 3(2)(vii) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 (for short ‘the Act) and Section 217 r/w 34 of the IPC, pending on the file of the 2nd Additional District Sessions Court, Dharwad, Hubli-Dharwad.
2. Heard Sri Sunil S. Desai, learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.103145/2022, Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.103100/2022 and Sri V.S.Kalasurmath, 5 learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. – State, in both the petitions. The second respondent – complainant though served, is unrepresented. Therefore, the learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader are heard.
3. Facts adumbrated in Crl.P.No.103145/2022, are as follows: The second respondent is the complainant, who was an employee of Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences. Applications were called for the post of Associate Professor by the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (for short ‘DIMHANS’) and the second respondent gets selected. He was later promoted as Professor in Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences. On 26.07.2019, the State Government directed the DIMHANS, to take action and pass appropriate orders with regard to several grievances vented out by the complainant. It is thereafter, the second respondent on 16.12.2019, was permanently transferred to DIMHANS. The Institution objected to the permanent transfer of the second respondent and also requested the government to 6 withdraw the transfer. The petitioner who was also in the cadre of Professor and on the score that his career progression would be stalled, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.117865/2019 before this Court and this Court in terms of the order dated 27.12.2019, grants an interim order of stay of the order, which directs permanent transfer of the second respondent. The government during the pendency of the said petition, withdrew the order of transfer of the second respondent on 17.02.2022. This was called in question by the second respondent in W.P.No.145149/2020. This Court after hearing both the parties, found that the order impugned did not contain any reason and therefore, directed redoing of the process. Just before the order could be passed, the second respondent registers a crime in crime No.109/2020, against the petitioner and another, alleging offence punishable under Section 3(1)(zc) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police after investigation, file a ‘B’ report.
4. All these happen during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court as afore-quoted. What transpires later is, the government withdraws the order of transfer of the second 7 respondent to DIMHANS on 08.12.2020. This leads the second respondent to register another complaint in crime No.3/2021 before the Cubbon Park Police Station against one Vijayalakshmi, alleging offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014. During the pendency of the aforesaid crimes, the second respondent reaches the doors of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who entertains the petition and issues notice. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Commission, the police on investigation file a second ‘B’ report in crime No.3/2021 on 22.09.2021. The second respondent withdraws the cases pending before this Court, where he has challenged the withdrawal of the order of transfer. Now, the second respondent wakes up again and files another compliant before the Raichur Market Yard Police Station, which is registered as crime No.82/2022. Since the allegations have happened in DIMHANS, this is transferred from Raichur to the Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad, where a fresh crime comes to be registered in Crime No.202/2022 on 27.09.2022, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 8
5. The companion petition in Crl.P.No.103100 of 2022 also calls in question the very registration of crime in crime No.202/2022. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.103145/2022 is accused No.2, while the petitioner in the companion petition – Crl.P.No.103100/2022 is accused No.1. Therefore, both these matters are taken up together and considered by this common order.
6. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.103100/2022 was at the relevant point in time working as incharge Director of DIMHANS. The facts that lead to the registration of the crime are identical to the one that is considered in the companion petition. Therefore, reiteration of the facts in the present case is not necessary.
7. The learned counsel Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, representing the petitioner in Crl.P.No.103100/2022 would vehemently contend that in gross abuse of the provisions of the Atrocities Act, the complaint is registered only as an act to wreck vengeance for the 9 act of the petitioners taking recourse to the proceedings in accordance with law. He would submit that the complainant is in the habit of registering crimes against his superiors, all for disputes which relate to service or conditions of service. He would submit that one such complaint registered against retired directors of DIMHANS was quashed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.200823/2016 disposed on 12.04.2019.
8. The learned counsel, Sri Sunil S. Desai, appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.103145/2022 would also reiterate the submissions made by the learned counsel Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.103100/2022. In unison, both the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the registration of the crime is on the face of it, is an abuse of the process of the law as the provisions of the law is misused.
9. The complainant is served on 05.11.2022 and is not represented throughout. The interim orders were granted in both petitions on 10.10.2023 and 19.10.2023, respectively and the same is extended on several dates. The respondent - complainant is left 10 unrepresented. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader are heard.
10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and requires no reiteration. What triggers the registration of the crime is a complaint so registered by the second respondent. It would suffice if the story would commence from the date on which the second respondent is permanently deputed as Professor of DIMHANS. The order of the Government deputing the complainant to DIMHANS reads as follows: “EªÀjAzÀ: ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀĪÀgÀÄ, DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄA§ PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ (ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ²PÀët) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. EªÀjUÉ: ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀgÀ«eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ.. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ: qÁ|| ©.gÀªÉÄñÀ ¨Á§Ä, ¥ÁæzÁså¥ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «bÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ gÉÆÃUÀ «¨ÁsUÀ, gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß zÁsgÀªÁqÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÄÀvÄÀÛ £ÀgÀ«eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ, E°è£À ªÀÄ£ÉÆêÉÊzÀå±Á¸ÀÛç «¨ÁsUÀzÀ°è SÁ°¬ÄgÄÀªÀ ¥ÉÆæ¥És¸Àgï ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¨ÁåPï¯ÁUï ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªiÀÁqÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÄÀ. 11 G¯ÉèÃR :
01. DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
07. 11.2016, 02. DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
20. 12.2018. **** ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃRzÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀvæzÀ À°è qÁ|| © gÀªÉÄñÀ ¨Á§Ä, ¥ÁæzÁså¥ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «¨ÁsUÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ gÉÆÃUÀ «¨ÁsUÀ, gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß zÁsgÀªÁqÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀgÀ«eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ, E°è£À ªÀÄ£ÉÆêÉÊzÀå±Á¸ÀÛç «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è SÁ°¬ÄgÀĪÀ ¥ÉÆæ¥És¸Àgï ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¨ÁåPï¯ÁUï ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÁVzÀÄÝ, G¯ÉèÃRzÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°è£À «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ PÀæªÀÄzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ¤zÉÃð²¸À®ànÖzÉÝãÉ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»/- (PÉ.ªÀÄÄgÀ½) – ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð 2 DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄA§ PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ, (ªÀåzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ²PÀët)” This is immediately protested to by the Director of DIMHANS, who is the petitioner in Crl.P.No.103100/2022, by a detailed communication. This results in generation of litigation. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.103145/2022 challenges the deputation before this Court in W.P.No.117865/2019. The co-ordinate bench of this Court grants an interim order on 27.12.2019, which reads as follows: “Issue notice. 12 Learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No.1 Sri Sunil Desai, learned counsel directed to take notice for respondent No.2 Issue emergent notice to respondent No.3. In addition to that, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to takeout hand summons to respondent No.3. Stay of Annexure-F, if respondent No.3 has not taken charge, till the next date of hearing. Post this matter on 08.01.2020.” This Court granted an interim order of stay as afore-quoted, only if the complainant had not taken charge. It transpires that the government withdraws the order of permanent transfer on 17.02.2022. During the pendency of the earlier petition, this becomes the subject matter of W.P.No.145149/2020 filed by the complainant. The writ petition comes to be disposed on 02.11.2020, by the following order: “9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Addl. Government Advocate and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 6, as no reasons are assigned in the impugned order, the writ petition is liable to be allowed on this ground itself. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed. 13 (ii) The impugned order dated 17.02.2020 as per Annexure-J is set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to pass appropriate speaking order after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6, within a period of seven days from today. (iii) Respondent No.2 shall make it very clear in the order as to which institution is liable to pay the salary to the petitioner from 28.12.2019. (iv) All parties are directed to appear before the second respondent on 10.11.2020 without awaiting for further notice from the second respondent. (v) All contention of the parties are left open.” The Court sets aside the order of withdrawal on the score that it did not contain any reasons and directed appropriate orders be passed afresh. Orders afresh are passed on 08.12.2020, again withdrawing the order of transfer that was earlier made. This was called in question by the complainant in W.P.No.102228/2021 and the petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition. What the complaint would do in the interregnum is, going on registering crimes against the Director and the person who had objected his entry into DIMHANS, they are the petitioners. The first of the crimes registered is on 28.08.2020 in crime No.109/2020. The 14 police after investigation file a ‘B’ report. The second of the crimes is registered in Crime No.3/2021, the police again after investigation file a ‘B’ report.
11. Sensing failure in the aforesaid crimes, the complainant rushes to the doors of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Commission issues notice and directs to retain the complainant in the Institution. Immediately thereafter, petitioner in Crl.P.No.103145/2022 files a petition in W.P.No.petition 103049/2021. This Court passes a detailed interim order which reads as follows: “Heard the learned counsel for¬ the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government had passed an order dated 08.12.2020, vide Annexure-M, directing the 4th respondent to report back in the parent Institution at Raichur. The said order was questioned by the 4th respondent before this Court in W.P.No.102228/2021 and this Court, while rejecting the interim prayer made by the 4th respondent in the said writ petition, had directed the 4th respondent to report to duty before the 5th respondent Institution, which is the parent Institution, subject to further orders from this Court. However, thereafterwards, the 4th respondent has approached the 2nd respondent, who has now passed an order vide Annexure-A, directing to retain the 4th respondent in the 3rd respondent Institution. He submits that the order now passed by respondent No.2 is contrary to the orders passed by this Court while rejecting the interim prayer made by the 4th respondent herein in W.P.No.102228/2021. He also submits that the 2nd respondent has exceeded its 15 jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. He also relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka Antibiotics and Another Vs. National Commission SC and ST Other reported in ILR2008KAR3305 Taking into consideration the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also having regard to the material available on record, there shall be an interim order, as prayed for, until further orders.” On the grant of the interim order, the complainant again senses failure; registers a third complaint now before the Raichur Market Yard Police Station in Crime No.82/2022. Since the events have happened in Dharwad, the crime is transferred to the Sub-Urban Police Station which comes to be registered as crime No.202/2022. Here a slew of offences are instituted they are, Section 4 (iii) of Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, Section 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(1)(zc), 3(2) (va), 3(2)(vii) of the Act and Section 217 r/w 34 of the IPC. It is this that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions.
12. Since the present petitions sprung from the complaint, the complaint requires to be noted. The complaint reads as follows: “ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £Á£ÀÄ qÁ|| ©.gÀªÉÄñÀ ¨Á§Ä, ¥ÉÆæÃ¥És¸Àgï ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 19.12.2019 PÉÌ jªÀiïì, gÁAiÀÄZÀÆj¤AzÀ ©qÀÄUÀqÉAiiÀÁV rªÀiÁ£ïì, zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.12.2019 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¹.n.¹.AiÄÀ£ÄÀß 16 ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ £Á£ÀÄ 2011 jAzÀ SÁ° EzÀÝ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwAiÀÄ ¨ÁåPï¯ÁUï ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝ£ÀÄ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ d£ÀªÀj 2020 gÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀßAiÄÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, rªÀiÁ£ïì, zÁsgÀªÁqÀ EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è CªÀgÀÄ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ eÁw PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ rªÀiÁ£ïì£À°è ºÁdgÁw ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀzÀ°è gÀÄdÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÅÀzÄÀ, Qè¤PÀ¯ï PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, «zÁåyðUÀ½UÉ G¥À£Áå¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀPÀët¢AzÀ ¸ÀÜVvÀUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÁdgÁw EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÄÀªÀ .(sic) GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ «£ÁBPÁgÀt £À£Àß ¸ÀA§¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÉ»r¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀªÁV rªÀiÁ£ïì£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ J®ègÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ CªÀªiÀÁ£À – ªÀiÁr ¥ÀÄ£ÀB £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆëqï 19 ¥ÁægÀA¨ÀszÀ°è zÁsgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è ªÀ¸ÀwUÀȺÀ, ¸ÀA§¼À ºÁUÆÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¸Ë¯¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀzÉà vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ £À£ÀUÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸ÀA§¼À ªÉÃvÀ£À ºÁUÀÆ E¤ßvÀgÀ ¨ÀsvÉåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀ£ÁVzÀÝjAzÀ qÁ|| ªÀĺÉñÀ zÉøÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ qÁ|| gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ C¢üPÁgÀ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «zÁå¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ C£ÀºÀð JAzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀå ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£ÉUÉ M®¥ÀqÀzÀ «ªÁ¢vÀ, ¸ÀȶֹzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ (¸ÀzÀå ªÀiÁ£Àå gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀvÀæ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ zÁR¯É) ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, £À£À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀƤ£À ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ºÀÆqÀÄvÁÛ ªÀĺÉñÀ zÉøÁ¬Ä EªÀgÀÄ GzÉÝñÀ¥ÀƪÀðPÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ rªÀiÁ£ïìzÀ°è ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀĺÉñÀ zÉøÁ¬Ä EªÀjUÉ ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀgÀÆ GzÉÝñÀ¥ÀƪÀðPÀªÁV GzÁ¹Ã£ÀvɬÄAzÀ ªÀwð¹ £À£ÉÆßAzÉUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀzÉà £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÉÆåÃV «ÄvÀægÀ JzÀÄjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¹zÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀUÉ ¹UÀvÀPÀÌAvÀºÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉà ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ºÀtPÁ¹£À vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸À£ï 2020gÀ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæöå ¢£ÁZÀgÀuÉ CAUÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ ªÀĺÉñÀ zÉøÁ¬ÄgÀªÀjUÉ ±ÀĨsÀ PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉßúÀ ¨sÁªÀ¢AzÀ PÉÊPÀÄ®ÄQ ºÉUÀ®Ä ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉÊ ºÁQ C©ü£ÀA¢¹zÉÝ CªÀjUÉ £À£Àß ¸Àà±Àð¢AzÀ QjQj GAmÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ J¯ÁègÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. FUÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ±ÉÆõÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ rªÀiÁ£ïì¤AzÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÀÇ £À£ÀUÉ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀvÁæAQvÀ C¢üPÁjUÉ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, EzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀ£ÁVzÀÝjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ CªÀPÁ±À ¹PÀÌgÉà ºÉaÑ£À ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ J°è ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛgÉÆà CAvÁ £À£ÀUÉ ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀå ªÀAavÀ£À£ÁßV ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ C¸Ààø±Àå£ÀAvÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ rªÀiÁ¤ì£À qÁ|| gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw DAiÉÆÃUÀ, £ÀªÀ zɺÀ° gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ìUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV ªÀĺÉñÀ zÉøÁ¬Ä gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¤r £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ qÁ||CAdÄ ¨Á¯Á, ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ, gÁ¶çÖÃAiÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw DAiÉÆÃUÀ, £ÀªÀ zɺÀ° gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è zÁªÉ ºÀÆrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. qÁ|| gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀvÀå ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£ÉUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀzÀ «ªÁ¢vÀ, ¸ÀȶֹzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ (¸ÀzÀå ªÀiÁ£Àå gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀvÀæ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è 17 «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ zÁR¯É) £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀļÀÄî PÁ£ÀƤ£À ªÀåªÀgÀºÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£Àß £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀļÀÄî, ¸ÀȶֹzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀj¹ (¸ÀļÀÄî C¦qÀ«mï) UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ºÀUÀÆ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ qÁ|| CAdÄ ¨Á¯Á, ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ, gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw DAiÉÆÃUÀ, £ÀªÀzɺÀ° gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÀÆrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ qÁ|| ªÀĺÉñÀ zÉøÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ qÁ||gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ UÀÄA¥ÀÄ PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ eÁw PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ rªÀiÁ£ïì, zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÁUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¤gÀAvÀgÀ C¸Ààø±ÀåvÉ DZÀj¹ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. GzÉÝñÀ¥ÀƪÀðPÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÆøÀzÀ ¤ÃwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÁ£ÀƤ£À «¢ü¤zÉÃð±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄßAiÀÄ ¥Á°¸ÀzÉà M§âgÀ£ÉƧâgÀÄ zÀAqÀ£É¬ÄAzÀ gÀQë¸ÀĪÀzÀPÉƸÀÌgÀ, £À£Àß CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.03.2020 jAzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ EvÀgÉà £Áå ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤qÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £À£ÀߣÀÄß rªÀiÁ£ïì, zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ §»µÀÌj¹ ¤gÀAvÀgÀ C¸Ààø±ÀåvÉ DZÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è vÉÆqÀVzÁÝgÉ. CªÀgÀÄ C¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÆøÀzÀ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¹vÀÛ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DqÀ½vÁvÀäPÀ «ZÁgÀªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄyð¸ÀÄvÁÛ CªÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ±Á«Ä¯ÁV ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ §»µÁÌgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤gÀAvÀgÀªÁV ºÉÃgÀÄvÁÛ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ C¸Ààø±ÀåvÉAiÀÄ DZÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è vÉÆqÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. iii) F J¯Áè ªÉÄð£À DA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ®A4 ¦.¹.Dgï, PÁAiÉÄÝ CrAiÀÄ°è ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉà PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ CrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAeÉÕÃAiÀÄ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ½AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀªÁV ±ÉÆõÀuÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ºÁUÀÆ QgÀÄPÀļÀ GAmÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. qÁ|| ªÀĺÉñÀ zÉøÁ¬Ä ºÁUÀÆ qÁ|| gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ qÁ|| CAdÄ ¨Á¯Á, ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ, gÁ¶çÖÃAiÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw DAiÉÆÃUÀ, £ÀªÀ zɺÀ° gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀļÀÄî C¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀªÁV UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀÆr, PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CrØ¥Àr¹ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ qÁ|| ªÀĺÉñÀ zÉøÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ qÁ|| gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀƤ£À PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ qÁ|| CAdÄ ¨Á¯Á, ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ, gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw DAiÉÆÃUÀ EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA«zsÁ¤PÀªÁV ¤ÃqÀ®ànÖgÀĪÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀPÀëuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.” (Emphasis added)
A perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that it is registered only to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who had stopped the entry of the complainant into the DIMHANS by taking recourse to legal proceedings and at every step, the complainant senses a 18 meltdown and registers repeated crimes against these petitioners in different police stations. All for the offences alleging the ones punishable under the Act.
13. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are noticed, what would unmistakably emerge is, the gross misuse and abuse of the provisions of the Act. These are cases which are projected as cases of Atrocity, while in effect, they are the cases which are used by the petitioner, a person belonging to Scheduled Caste to settle his personal scores against persons who have come in the way of his career progression albeit legally. There is not an iota of ingredient present of all the offences that are alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners are now made to suffer for having objected the entry of the complainant into DIMHANS, which the government itself accepts and withdraws the order of transfer. These acts of the petitioners by no stretch of imagination, can be construed to be offending any of the provisions of the Act. The alleged offences repeatedly made are the ones punishable for the following offences:
19. “Section 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(1)(zc), 3(2) (va), 3(2)(vii) of the Act and Section 217 r/w 34 of the IPC.” Section 3(1)(p) makes the accused punishable under the Act. If the accused would institute false, malicious or vexatious suit or a criminal case against the member belonging to SC/ST; Section 3(1)(q) punishes an accused if he gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and causes annoyance to a member belonging to SC/ST would become punishable under the Act; Section 3(1)(r) punishes a person who intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member belonging to SC/ST, in any place within public view; Section 3(1)(za)(E) punishes any person who prevents a member of any SC/ST practicing any profession and causing any hindrance to such practice; Section 3(1)(zc) deals with preventing a member belonging to SC/ST into a place of worship or any incidental places; Section 3(2)(va) punishes a person who knowingly commits an offence or disturbs such property belonging to a member of SC/ST and Section 3(2)(vii) punishes any public servant committing an offence under the Act. What remains is Section 217 of the IPC. Section 217 of the IPC20punishes a public servant disobeying direction of law. The aforesaid, form the contents of every complaint registered by the complainant, not once nor twice but thrice.
14. If the aforesaid ingredients of the offences are considered on the backdrop of the facts narrated hereinabove, the unmistakable inference that can be drawn is gross reviling of the provisions of the Act. Reviling I say, is at every step, the petitioners have taken legal proceedings before this Court to call in question the entry of the complainant into DIMHANS. If taking of legal proceedings is construed as Atrocity against the members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it would have a chilling effect on exercise of constitutional rights by the persons like the petitioners. Not one crime, but three crimes are registered at different police stations. The first one in crime No.109/2020 before the Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station; this results in a ‘B’ report being filed by the police; the ‘B’ report becomes final. The second crime is registered before the Cubbon Park Sub–Division Police Station in crime No.3/2021. The other one is before the Raichur Market Yard Police Station. This complaint is transferred to 21 Dharwad Sub Urban Police Station and it is numbered as Crime No.202/2022, this is the impugned crime.
15. In the wake of mushrooming of cases of misuse of the provisions of the Act, the Apex Court in the case of GHULAM MUSTAFA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER1 observes and directs as follows: “38. This Court would indicate that the officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty-bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused. The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand. We clarify that our remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position.” (Emphasis supplied) It is therefore, necessary for every Officer who would institute a crime based on any complaint to be vigilant in registering such crimes without appropriate verification. The case at hand should become an eye opener to the Officers who would seek to register crimes on such allegations to follow the dictum of the Apex Court 1 2023 SCC Online SC60322 supra. As the Apex Court has observed that this cannot be treated as a manner to dilute the applicability of the stringent statute but only reminder not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position.
16. The case at hand becomes an apt illustration to what the Apex Court has observed. A clear service dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is dressed with a colour of atrocity and multiple crimes are registered by the complainant. Therefore, if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would become an abuse of the process of the law, result in patent injustice.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER
a. The criminal petition Nos.103145/2022 and 103100/2022 are allowed. 23 b. The proceedings in Crime No.202/2022 pending on the file of the 2nd Additional District Sessions Court, Dharwad, Hubli-Dharwad, stands quashed, qua the petitioners. Sd/- JUDGE nvj CT:MJ