Delay in lodging a complaint and lack of sufficient evidence obscured intent to humiliate under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, leading to quashing of proceedings.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner/accused is at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.943 of 2024 pending before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru, arising out of crime in Crime No.126 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.

2. Facts, adumbrated are as follows: -

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the 2^nd respondent and the petitioner along with two others were partners in the business of real estate established in the name and style of ‘Green Land Infra’ in Bangalore City. The firm is registered on 28-01-2011. On 08.08.2011, the petitioner along with his wife and one witness CW-6/Mohan Kagadala joined the firm as business partners. The agreement between the partners was said to be that the complainant will be appointed as the Managing Director and the petitioner would be nominated as a Joint Signatory Authority. All the partners come together with a vision to develop the lands belonging to the local farmers. Time passed by, after about a decade of the said partnership, dispute arose between the partners particularly, between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, on the score that the petitioner did not sign several documents pertaining to the firm, due to which, the development at various places was stalled. An incident is narrated that comes about on 23-12-2020, when the petitioner called the 2^nd respondent/complainant over phone and asked him to come near MES ground at Jayanagar. The two met on the location.

3. It is further alleged that the petitioner had threatened the2^nd respondent with dire consequence, if the petitioner did not receive his invested money back from the firm. The further narration is that, the petitioner has hurled abuses referring to the caste of the complainant. On the said incident, a complaint was initially registered before the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as ‘DCRE’) on 20-04-2021 by the 2^nd respondent. The delay of four months in taking the complaint to DCRE was also explained. The DCRE keeps the complaint for over three years and on 01-04-2024, directs registration of a crime. It is thus, the crime is registered before the jurisdictional Police on 06-04-2024, for the afore-quoted offences. The incident in the crime is said to have taken place on 23-12-2020. After registration of crime, the Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences quoted supra. Filing of the charge sheet and issuance of summons has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. This Court interdicts further proceedings against the petitioner by grant of an interim order on 10-07-2024. This comes to be challenged by the complainant before the Apex Court. The Apex Court rejects the Special Leave Petition, reserving liberty to the complainant to seek vacation of the interim order. An application is filed by the complainant seeking vacation of the interim order. The matter is heard at that stage with the consent of parties.

5. Heard Sri Shrinath Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Mohammed Sultan Beary, learned counsel appearin