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 of the accused and the intent to humiliate the complainant in public.

JUDGMENT

1. The Criminal Petition No.104105/2022 is filed by accused No.2 and Criminal Petition No.101177/2022 is filed by accused No.1. Both the petitions are filed praying to quash the FIR and complaint in Dharwad, Sub-Urban Police Station Crime No.28/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for brevity) and Ss. 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC' for brevity).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

3. Respondent No.2 filed complaint and the same came to be registered in Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station Crime No.28/2022 for the aforesaid offences. In the FIR, petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners have sought quashing of the complaint and FIR in Crime No.28/2022 of Dharwad SubUrban Police Station.

4. Learned counsel for accused No.2 (petitioner in Crime No.104105/2022) would contend that there is no allegation of any abuse to respondent No.2 touching his caste to attract the offence under Sec. 3 of the Act. Even there is no allegation of accused No.2 being present on the date of incident i.e., 4/2/2022 at the spot. Accused No.2 has been named in the complaint only on the assumption that he and accused No.1 were involved in sending a letter through post on 3/2/2022 making allegations about working style of respondent No.2 to Governor of Karnataka State. What is contained in the said postal cover has not been stated in the complaint. He contends that there are no materials against accused No.2 to attract the offences for which the case is registered. With this, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings against accused No.2.

5. Learned counsel for accused No.1 (Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.101177/2022) would contend that respondent No.2 only assuming that accused Nos.1 and 2 might have sent a cover containing some allegations against him made in fictitious name namely Lokanath H. Hindasageri and with an intention to take revenge against them, has made a false allegation against this accused No.1 of abuse by touching his caste that too after office hours on 4/2/2022. Learned counsel for accused No.1 would contend that averments of complaint does not contain that accused persons are not the members of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intent to humiliate in a place within public view. He contends that even respondent No.2 has not stated in the complaint that the accused persons knew his caste prior to the date incident. On that point, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531. Asmathunnisa Vs state of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Another, (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 259. Judgment of this Court in the case of Deepak Mahadevappa Turamari and others Vs State of Karnataka and Another, [Crl.P.No.100915/2019 & connected matter, decided on 16/8/2021.] and in the case of Harish S/o H.Shanthana Gouda and others Vs The State of Karnataka and Another, Crl.P.No.103202/2022, decided on 29/11/2023. The complaint filed by respondent No.2 is abuse of process of law which is filed with intent to take revenge against accused persons assuming that they sent a letter to the Governor of Karnataka making false allegations against him in the fictitious name on the previous day of incident. With this, he prayed to allow the petitions.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State would contend that on perusal of the averments of complaint there is a specific allegation against accused No.2 of abusing respondent No.2 taking