IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
RAGHAVENDRA B. NAYAK S/O BHEEMAPPA NAYAK – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 103100, 103145 of 2022
Decided On : 20-12-2023
Abuse of Process of Law - Registration of Crime - Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 - Section 4 (iii), 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(1)(zc), 3(2) (va), 3(2)(vii) - 217 r/w 34 of the IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the repeated registration of crimes by the complainant against the petitioners, who objected the complainant's entry into DIMHANS, leading to a series of legal proceedings and government orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registration of the crimes was a gross misuse and abuse of the provisions of the Act, as the petitioners were targeted for legally objecting the complainant's entry into DIMHANS.
Issues: The main issue was the misuse of the provisions of the Act and the abuse of the legal process by the repeated registration of crimes against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for vigilance in registering crimes under stringent statutes like the SC and ST Act, and highlighted the duty of officers to verify the applicability of the law before invoking its provisions.
Final Decision: The criminal petitions were allowed, and the proceedings in Crime No. 202/2022 were quashed, ruling in favor of the petitioners.
ORDER :
1. 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. Pet. No. 103145/2022, Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for petitioner in Crl. Pet. No. 103100/2022 and Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, 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. Pet. No. 103145/2022, are as follows:
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 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 t
The central legal point established is the need for vigilance in registering crimes under stringent statutes and the prevention of abuse of the legal process.
A complaint under the Atrocities Act filed after substantial delay lacks merit and may be quashed if it does not present a prima facie case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific details and the need for the insult or intimidation to be made in a place within public view to establish a prima faci....
A complaint dismissed before registration does not bar a subsequent complaint on the same facts, provided it is not dismissed on merit.
The Court ruled that a Magistrate cannot direct police to register and investigate a complaint for defamation under Section 500 IPC without following due process as outlined in Section 199 of the CrP....
The court established that adverse remarks in performance evaluations by superior officers do not amount to caste-based harassment under the SC/ST (POA) Act unless there is clear evidence of malice o....
The misuse of the S.C./S.T. Act for personal grievances is impermissible, and allegations must substantiate a prima facie case to avoid abuse of legal processes.
The judgment established the importance of prior sanction for public servants under Section 197 of Cr.P.C and highlighted the need to consider the motive behind allegations and the potential for misu....
FIR quashed u/s 482 CrPC as vague allegations by ex-employee arise from civil dispute over app, lacking offence ingredients and abusing process.
The essential elements required to establish offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act must be explicitly stated in the FIR, including the caste status o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.