SRI VASANTH KUMAR v. STATE BY NANDINI LAYOUT

POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SRI VELU NAYAKAR S/O MURUGESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO 594, 1ST STAGE 9TH CROSS, GOKULA BENGALURU - 560 054. KRISHNA KUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI Y.R. SADASIVAREDDY, SR COUNSEL FOR SRI KALYAN R. ADV., FOR R-2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:8527 CRL.P No. 6006 of 2023 THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.200/2023 FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S.3(1)(R)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 2014 R/W SEC.506,149,380,448,323 OF IPC 1860 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

1. Petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.200/2023 which is pending before the Court of City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) registered by Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 149, 380, 448 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST (POA) Act' for short) are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case, as against them.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:8527 CRL.P No. 6006 of 2023

3. FIR in Crime No.200/2023 was registered by Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein and five others on the basis of the complaint of respondent No.2 herein dated

26.06.2023. In the complaint, is averred complainant was in occupation of premises which was leased by accused No.2 under Lease deed dated

10.09.2015 in favour of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). It is the specific case of the complainant that he being an elected councilor of BBMP, the premises in question was taken on lease by the BBMP for the purpose of his office. The allegation in the complaint is that on 22.06.2023, persons named in the complaint have forcibly entered into the office premises of the complainant and after removing his name plate, had thrown away the photographs of Baba Saheb Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and other National leaders, which were in the office premises of the complainant. After coming to know about the incident when the complainant allegedly enquired with accused No.1 about the incident in question, accused No.1 - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:8527 CRL.P No. 6006 of 2023 allegedly referred to the caste of the complainant and abused him. It is also alleged that the complainant was caught in his neck and pushed out of the premises. Thereafter, accused persons allegedly left the spot. When the complainant verified subsequently, he came to know that a sum of Rs.1 lakh and few property documents, which were in his office were missing. It is in this background, he had lodged a complaint against the accused named in the complaint, which had resulted in registering FIR by Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. Though the alleged incident had taken place on 22.06.2023, the complaint is belatedly lodged on 26.06.2023. He submits that lease was only for a period of five years and the same was not extended and therefore, the complainant was not in possession of the premises as on the date of incident. He submits that there is no ingredients to invoke the - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:8527 CRL.P No. 6006 of 2023 offences under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act as against accused persons. Since necessary ingredients are absent in the complaint, the alleged offences do not get attracted. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP have opposed the petition. They submit that allegations made in the complaint prima facie attract the offences which are invoked against the accused in the FIR. They also submit that subsequently police have recorded the statement of eye witnesses, who were present in the spot at the time of incident. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.

6. The material on record would go to show that the petitioner No.2 had leased the office premises which is the subject matter of the Lease Deed dated 10.09.2015 in favour of BBMP. In the Lease Deed itself, it is mentioned that the complainant is the elected councilor of Ward No.42 of BBMP and for his office purpose, the premises was leased. Therefore, it is evident that the complainant - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:8527 CRL.P No. 6006 of 2023 was put in possession of the premises, which was leased under the Lease Agreement dated 10.09.2015. The allegations in the complaint is that the petitioners herein along with others accused named in the complaint have tried to forcibly take possession of the premises on

22.06.2023 and when the said action of theirs was questioned by the complainant, he was abused referring to his caste and he also was pushed out by the accused persons from the premises in question.

7. For the purpose of attracting the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, there should be some material to show that accused with an intention to humiliate or ill-treat the complainant in any place within the public view should have abused the complainant, who is a member of the SC/ST by referring to his caste. Even though there is an allegation in the complaint that by referring the caste of complainant, accused No.1 had abused him, there is no such averments in the complaint that complainant was - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:8527 CRL.P No. 6006 of 2023 insulted or abused by accused No.1 by referring to his caste in any place within the public view. The presence of any public in the place of incident is not mentioned in the complaint. In the absence of any such material, there is no justification for registering the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, by the police. Insofar as other offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, there are specific allegations made in the complaint with regard to trespassing, forming of an unlawful assembly, assaulting and committing theft of some valuables from the property belonging to the complainant. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that petitioners have not made out any good ground to quash the proceedings insofar as it relates to registration of FIR for the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, following:- ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is partly allowed. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:8527 CRL.P No. 6006 of 2023 (ii) FIR in Crime No.200/2023 which is pending before the Court of City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) registered by Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, is quashed, as against the petitioners herein, insofar as it relates to registration of FIR for the offence punishable Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. (iii) However, it is made clear that the case shall continue insofar as it relates to other offences under the Indian Penal Code. Sd/- JUDGE DN