The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17981 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 850 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: C SUMALATHA W/O EDWIN JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT 6 AND 7, III CROSS, NAGENAHALLI, KOTHANUR POST, BANGALORE-560077 …PETITIONER Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI.VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR, YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, NOW REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 2. GIRISH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS POLICE SUB INSPECTOR DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 3. KUMARI SALMA @ SAHIRABANU D/O LATE HUSSION, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17981 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2020 #35, 12TH CROSS, LINGARAJAPURA, BANGALORE - 560027
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT.SALMA @ SAIRA BANU, PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 196, 198 AND 420 IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(q) OF THE SC AND ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT, IN SPL.CC NO.597/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER In this petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, the petitioner, who is accused has challenged order passed by the trial Court, rejecting her application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking discharge. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17981 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2020 3. A charge sheet came to be filed against the accused alleging that accused belong to Christian community. However, concealing the said fact, with the intention of taking benefits available to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, she secured a certificate dated 01.01.2016, claiming to be belonging to 'Adi Dravida' and on the basis of it, filed a complaint dated 09.07.2017 against CW-10 Kumari Salma @ Sahira Banu, in Cr.No.140/2017, alleging that she has committed offences punishable under sections 504, 506, r/w 34 and Section 3(1)(r) of SC and ST(POA) Act and thereby misused the facility available to persons belonging to SC/ST community and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 196, 198, 420 r/w Sections 3(1)(q) of SC/ST(POA) Act. 4. Complainant filed application under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking discharge. After considering the objections filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, the trial Court rejected the said application. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17981 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2020 5. Challenging the same the present petition is filed by the accused, contending that the registration of FIR and subsequent investigation against the petitioner is opposed to law and facts. The allegations contained in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety, do not constitute offences punishable under Sections 196, 198 and 420 IPC and Section 3(1)(q) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act are not attracted as the victim i.e, CW-10 Salma is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that the school records of the accused clearly disclose that she belong to Scheduled Caste. 5.1 Earlier petitioner challenged the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the trial Court in Crl.RP.No.1463/2019 and vide order dated 20.12.2019, it was allowed and the case was remanded back with a direction to reconsider the plea of the petitioner for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17981 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2020 discharge. After the same, the present order is passed, which is challenged in the present petition. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 - State, the learned counsel representing respondent No.2, the Director of Civil Right Enforcement and respondent No.3 the defacto complainant, who is the party-in-person have submitted argument supporting the impugned order. They would submit that the accused who is a born Hindu, converted to Christianity and married a Christian. However, when the defacto complainant initiated proceedings against her for encroachment and construction of four floor building without securing any license and approved plan and when the BBMP issued order for demolition of the said building, she got the defacto complainant assaulted through Gundas and in this connection CC.No.54276/2016 is pending against the accused, her husband and others. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17981 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2020 7. They would further submit that in this background, accused got registered a false complaint in Cr.No.140/2017 against the defacto complainant and her brother Noor Mohammed Ali for the offences punishable under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act and prosecuted her. In this background, the defacto complainant filed a petition before the Civil Right Enforcement Authorities. After conducting detailed enquiry, the District Caste Verification Committee cancelled the caste certificate secured by the accused and based on the said proceedings, a case came to be registered against the accused and after conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed. There is prima facie material to frame charge against the accused and proceed against her. Rightly the trial Court has rejected application filed by the accused. Unnecessarily the accused is protracting the proceedings and pray to dismiss this petition also. 8. Heard arguments and perused the record. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17981 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2020 9. Thus, it is the specific case of the prosecution that accused though a born Hindu, later during her childhood itself, she was converted to Christianity, she was Baptists and she is married a Christian and as such she does not belong to SC community. However, she has secured caste certificate by falsely representing that she belong to 'Adi Dravida' caste, which is categorized as Scheduled Caste. Not only she has secured a false caste certificate, but also on the basis of it she filed a false complaint against CW-10 and her brother in Cr.No.140/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act and prosecuted them. Only after CW-10 filed a complaint with the Director of Civil Right Enforcement. A enquiry was held and the fact of accused having secured false caste certificate came to light. 10. Rule 7-A (2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc) Rules, 1992, mandates that after the rejection of application for or cancellation of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17981 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2020 the caste certificate, the Directorate Civil Rights Enforcement shall take steps to prosecute such claimant who has obtained a false caste certificate. Accordingly, after the said caste certificate was cancelled, on the directions of Director of Civil Right Enforcement, a complaint was filed and after investigation, charge sheet is filed. 11. Though in the grounds of the petition not urged, at the time of argument, learned counsel for accused submitted that the Civil Right Enforcement Directorate is not a police station and as such charge sheet is not maintainable. However, it is pertinent to note that the case was registered by Yelahanka Police and charge sheet is filed by the said police. The charge sheet is only counter signed by the police inspector of Civil Enforcement Directorate. It is a case where a person not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, on the basis of false certificate tried to secure the benefit available to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17981 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2020 Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, there was no need for investigation to be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Therefore, this objections is also not tenable. 12. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for accused that as per Section 2 (e) (c), a victim should necessarily belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and since the defacto complainant does not come under the definition of victim, the charge sheet is not tenable. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the accused has secured a false caste certificate and on the basis of it, filed a complaint under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, which she is not entitled and thereby tried to misuse the said provision. There is also possibility of she trying to take advantage of the same in future and thereby prevent the legitimate claim of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category. Even an attempt to take benefit of a false caste certificate is also punishable. The accused though belong to a Christian - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17981 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2020 community has secured false caste certificate as belonging to Scheduled Caste and on that basis filed a false complaint against CW-10. In the above facts and circumstances, there is prima facie material to proceed against her. Rightly the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the accused seeking discharge. This Court finds no perversity in the impugned order calling for
Decision
interference. In the result the petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the complainant under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is dismissed. (ii) The impugned order dated 30.09.2020 in Spl.C.No.597/2019 on the file of LXX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-71), is confirmed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17981 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2020 (iii) The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of this order forthwith. RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE