Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3431 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SANDEEP, S/O HAREESHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O EDGA STREET, AREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN - 573 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROOPESHA B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AREHALLI P.S., REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 573 101.
2. MANJAIAH
Digitally signed by S/O NAGAIAH, NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH R/O MALLAPURA VILLAGE, COURT OF AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK KARNATAKA HASSAN - 573 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.96/2017 (CRIME NO.160/2016) PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT FOR THE -2- OFFENCES P/U/S 506, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(x) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1980. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following releifs:
"WHEREFORE, the Petitioner above named humbly prays that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the FIR and all further proceedings in SPL.C.No. the file of Principal District & Sessions Court, Hassan District for the offences punishable under section 506,504 R/w 34 of IPC and under section 3(1) (X) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1980, in the interest of justice."
2. Respondent No.2 had filed a complaint on 06.10.2016
with the Arehalli Police Station, Belur Circle on which basis Crime No.160/2016 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1980 (for short 'SC and ST Act').
3. The essential allegation made in the said complaint is that there has been a dispute as regards the property between the complainant and the petitioner, the accused -3-
has abused the complainant by using his caste in the disputed property and there is a threat held out and in furtherance thereof, the action is taken place. Subsequent thereto, the investigation having been completed, charge sheet has been laid on 19.01.2017. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid relief.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 as regards the property in question in O.S.No.118/2010 which is pending on the file of the Civil Judge, Belur. It is in that background that a false complaint has been filed by the respondent to coerce the petitioner.
5. His submission is also that, even on a perusal of the
entire complaint, the background of the complaint is a civil dispute and it cannot be said that there was an intention on part of the petitioner to abuse the complainant by using his caste. Further more, the incident having occurred, No offence is made out and in -4- this regard, he relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584.
6. Though respondent No.2 has been represented by a
counsel, none has been appearing for respondent No.2 and this Court, vide its order dated 20.03.2024 observing the same, has noted that in the event of there being no representation on part of respondent No.2, the matter would be taken up for consideration on the basis of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. As such, the same is taken up.
7. There is substance in the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the place of occurrence is stated to be the property in dispute, which has been decreed in favour of the petitioner in O.S.No.118/2010 by the Civil Judge, Belur. Wherein the petitioner was decree holder, respondent No.2 had come to the said property, and the accused is stated to have abused respondent No.2 by using his caste. It is -5-
respondent No.2 who has come to the property, which would indicate that there is no particular reason for the petitioner to have abused respondent No.2 since it is not the petitioner who has gone to the property of respondent No.2.
8. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Hitesh Verma, the alleged offence being not a standalone offence but relating to a civil dispute and having occurred in the property in dispute and not before the general public, I am of the considered opinion that the offences under Sections 3(1)(X) of the SC and ST Act cannot be said to be made out. The cognizance of an offence not having been made out, the non-cognizable offence under Sections 506 and 504 of the IPC, was not sustainable. As such, I pass the following:
::ORDER::
i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in FIR No.160/2016 registered by the Arehalli Police station, Belur now pending in -6- Spl.C.C.No.96/2017 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Hassan are hereby quashed. Sd/- JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT: BHK