1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4570 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI. RAVINDRA PRATAP

S/O PRATAP ERAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

2.

SMT.RANI PRATAP

W/O PRATAP ERAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.14,

GROUND FLOOR, I MAIN ROAD,

VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. .. PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION,

THROUGH S.H.O. REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.

SMT.P.MUNIRATHNA

RETD. A.C.P.W/O LATE VIJAYA KUMAR,

R/AT NO.14,GROUND FLOOR I MAIN ROAD,

VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL SPP FOR R-1

SRI. E.R. GAJENDRA NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2(ABSENT))

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN

CRIME NO.62/2017 REGISTERED BY THE HIGH GROUNDS POLICE, FOR THE

OFFENCES P/U/S 3(1)(r)(s) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED

TRIBES (POA) ACT AND SEC.430 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF II

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, FOR

THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 (CCH-17), BENGALURU.

2

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT

MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Petitioners are aggrieved by the registration of the FIR

against them in Crime No.62/2017 for the offences punishable

under Sections 3(1) (r) & (s) of the Scheduled Caste &

Scheduled

Tribes

(Prevention

of

Atrocities)

Amendment

Ordinance 2014 and Section 430 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned

Additional SPP for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent

No.2 is absent and has not addressed any arguments. Perused

the records.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the son

of the complainant was a tenant under the husband of petitioner

No.2. The son of the complainant was in arrears of rent and a

suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was filed against

him in O.S.No.8070/16 and in that background, a false

complaint has been lodged by the complainant alleging that the

complainant was abused calling out her caste and that the water

supply to her house was interrupted by the petitioners. Learned

3

counsel contended that none of the allegations made in the FIR

attract the ingredients of Clauses (r) and (s) of Section 3(1) of

the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. According to the complainant

the alleged incident had taken place inside the house and not in

public view. So far as the allegations of obstruction of water

supply is concerned, the complainant was not a tenant under the

petitioners and therefore, absolutely there was no occasion for

the complainant to hurl abuses against the petitioners.

4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the

petitioners

has

produced

a

copy

of

the

judgment

in

O.S.No.8070/16 wherein the parties have entered into a

compromise and the husband of the petitioner No.2 has given up

the arrears of rent from the son of the complainant and the son

of the complainant has handed over vacant possession to the

husband of the petitioner No.2.

5. The above circumstances, clearly indicate that the

alleged incident has taken place in the back-drop of the civil suit

filed by the husband of petitioner No.2 for eviction of the son of

4

the complainant wherein the complainant also resided. The

allegations made in the complaint even if accepted as true do

not make out the ingredients of the offences under Section 3 (1)

(r) & (s) of the Act. Clauses (r) and (s) of Section 3(1) of the

Act reads as under :-

(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to

humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a

Schedule Tribe in any place within public view;

(s)