SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
VENKATESH NAIK T, J.
Prakash Patil, S/o Vemkangouda @ Yenkangouda Patil – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.201329 of 2023
Decided on : 20-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, FOR SRI GANESH S. KALBURAGI, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI J. SHAHABUDDIN, SRI SANTOSH KUMAR B. METRI, ADVOCATE

Disputed facts should be decided in trial, and criminal complaints cannot be quashed solely on the ground that the allegations are civil in nature.

Headnote:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 482 INDIAN PENAL CODE - Sections 504, 506 SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT - Sections 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) Summary: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against him for offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The complainant alleged that the petitioner insulted him based on his caste, intentionally provoked him, and made criminal threats. The petitioner argued that the allegations were false and there was a delay in lodging the complaint. The court referred to various judgments, including HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER, and held that the disputed facts should be decided in trial and there was prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. The petition was dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was accused of insulting the complainant based on his caste, provoking him, and making criminal threats. The complainant lodged a complaint after a delay of twelve days.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner based on the complainant's allegations and the evidence submitted.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that disputed facts should be decided in trial and that criminal complaints cannot be quashed solely on the ground that the allegations are civil in nature. Final Decision: The petition to quash the proceedings was dismissed.

ORDER :

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to quash the further proceedings in Crime No.256 of 2022 of Devadurga Police Station, Raichur, for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Section 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short, ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’] pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Raichur.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant and perused the material on record.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 30-9-2022 between 2.30 p.m. and 3.00 p.m., at the building near Devadurga Shankarabandi Cross, C.W.2-Mallesh Badiger, friend of the complainant, asked the complainant to meet the petitioner and to bring amount of Rs.1,00,000/-from him, which he owes to C.W.2. During the said period, there was telephonic conversation between C.W.2 and the accused and in that telephonic conversation, it is alleged that, the petitioner abused the complainant by taking up his caste, intentionally insulted him to provoke his breach of peace and made criminal intimidation to eliminate him. Hence, on 12-10-2022, the complainant lodged a complaint.

4. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent-Police registered a case in Crime No.256 of 2022 for the aforesaid offences. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed the charge-sheet. The trial Court soon after receipt of the charge-sheet, took cognizance of the offences under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and issued process against the petitioner. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegation made against the petitioner is afterthought so as to falsely implicate him, there is delay of twelve days in lodging the complaint, but delay has not been properly explained by the complainant, the dispute is with regard to recovery of money which was entrusted to C.W.2-Mallesh Badiger.

6. Learned counsel places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584, Criminal Petition No.4384 of 2023 dated 12-7-2023, Criminal Petition No.9028 of 2021 dated 4-8-2023 and Criminal Petition No.2171 of 2016 dated 23-6-2022.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that there is prima-facie material against the petitioner to attract the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The petitioner intentionally insulted the complainant to provoke his breach of peace and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate him. He further submits that now the investigation is completed and the trial Court has taken cognizance. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. On perusal of the complaint, the complainant made allegations that on 30-9-2022 between 2.30 p.m. and 3.00 p.m., the petitioner abused the complainant by taking up his caste, intentionally insulted him to provoke his breach of peace and made criminal intimidation to eliminate him.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident alleged to have been taken place in the house of complainant and it is not at public place. Hence, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584, wherein at paragraph Nos.15 and 18, it has held as under:

    "15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top