Heard the learned counsel for appellants and learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and

perused the material on record.

Learned High Court Government Pleader has

filed a memo along with the Police Report, for having

served notice on respondent No.2/defacto complainant.

3.

This appeal is preferred against the order dated

20.02.2023 passed by the Court of the II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru in Crl. Misc.

- 3 -

Case No.107/2023, whereby the application filed by the

appellants herein under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was

dismissed.

4.

The appellants have sought to enlarge them on

anticipatory bail in Crime No.007/2023 of Kavoor Police

Station, Mangaluru City registered for offences punishable

under Sections 324, 354, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of

IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Ordinance 2014.

5.

The complaint is lodged by one Manjula B w/o

Shivananda before the respondent Police against the

appellants herein on 18.01.2023 at about 8:30 p.m. in

respect of an incident which occurred on 17.01.2023 at

about 9:20 p.m. A perusal of the complaint averments

goes to show that the complainant is a resident of house

bearing No.4-49/2, Mullakadu, Kavoor and she is a tenant

under the appellants. On 17.01.2023 at about 9 hours 20

minutes when she had returned from Kolluru along with

- 4 -

her husband she saw that her landlord had put a lock to

her house and when she sent her son to request the

landlord to open the lock, the appellants herein abused

and told him to call his mother/complainant and when she

went and requested them, both the appellants abused her

in filthy language taking the name of her caste and

assaulted with hands and also caused injuries to her with a

knife and threatened with dire consequences etc.

6.

Learned High Court Government Pleader has

made available a copy of the wound certificate of the

complainant to contend that these appellants have not

only abused the complainant referring to her caste and

insulted her but also caused injuries to her with a knife.

He contends that in view of the bar under Section 18 of

SC/ST (POA) Act, the appellants are not entitled for

anticipatory bail.

7.

In so far as the allegations of abusing the

appellants in filthy language referring to her caste etc is

concerned, it is not a case of prosecution that only for the

- 5 -

reason that the complainant belong to scheduled caste,

she was abused by the appellants. It appears from the

complaint itself that there is some dispute between the

appellants, namely the landlord and the complainant and

her husband who are the tenants. The incident has

occurred when the complainant requested the appellants

to open the lock put to the door.

8.

The

Learned

counsel

for

appellants

would

vehemently contend that the complainant is trying to

convert

civil

dispute

into

criminal

proceedings

by

registering false case against the appellants. He has relied

upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in

2022

live

law

(SC)

14

in

the

case

of

B.

VENKATESWARAN

&

ORS.

versus

P.

BAKTHAVATCHALAM and contended that in the said

case the Hon’ble Apex Court after noticing that a private

Civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal

proceedings, quashed the proceedings initiated against the

accused therein, for the offence punishable under Section

- 6 -

3(1)(v)(va) of the SC/ST Act, holding that it is nothing but

an abuse or process of law and Court. It is also contended

by the learned counsel that even accepting the case of the

prosecution, the ingredients of the offences alleged are not

made out and the incident has not taken place in public

view on the other hand it has taken place inside the four

walls of the house.

9.

As per the wound certificate made available by

the

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader,

the

complainant has sustained simple injuries such as lineal

abrasions etc. Another aspect is that,