Karnataka High Court
Abhishek And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Anr on 28 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369
CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201755 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. ABHISHEK S/O SHIVALINGAPPA PATTAN,
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. MEERA BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS,
OPP. O/O POLICE COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. SMT. PRIYADARSHINI
W/O SHIVALINGAPPA PATTAN,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O.MEERA BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS,
OPP. O/O POLICE COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed KALABURAGI-585102.
by SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH ...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BRAHMPUR PS, KALABURAGI,
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
2. SMT. SUNITA W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. H.NO. 2, MEERA BLOCK,
POLICE QUARTERS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369
CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023
OPP. O/O POLICE COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO. 144/2023 BRAHMPUR
POLICE STATION DIST. KALABURAGI AND SPL. CASE SC/ST
NO. 49/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 323,
354, 504, 506, IPC R/W 34 IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST
ACT-1989 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT KALABURAGI, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
Petitioners are before this Court under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in
Special Case (SC/ST) No.49/2023 pending before the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, arising out
of Crime No.144/2023, registered by Brahmapur Police Station,
Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)
& (S) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369
CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 who is
served in the matter has remained un-represented before this
Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that,
the allegations found in the first information dated 09.06.2023
prima-facie do not make out a case against the petitioners for
the offences punishable under the provisions of SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989. Further statement of the first informant and the
alleged eyewitnesses i.e. C.W.5 to C.S.7 has been recorded
belatedly and only based on the said statement, charge-sheet
is now filed against the petitioners for the alleged offences. The
petitioners who are the wife and son of a serving Police Officer
are put to serious embarrassment because of the impugned
criminal proceedings. Accordingly, he prays to allow the
petition.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition.
He submits that, the incident in question is recorded in CCTV
footage and the same is part of the charge-sheet. C.W.5 to
C.W.7 have stated that, they have seen the alleged incident.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369
CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023
Therefore, there is a prima-facie case as against the petitioners
for the alleged offences. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
petition.
5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show
that, the petitioners herein are the wife and son of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police who is in service and the respondent
No.2 is also the wife of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is
in service. The incident in question allegedly had taken place
on 19.06.2023, when the petitioners herein had taken their dog
to attend nature call. The allegation in the first information is
that, the first informant had objected the petitioners for taking
their dog to attend nature call within the premises of police
quarters and therefore, the petitioners allegedly had abused
the first informant referring to her caste and also criminally
intimidated her. Perusal of the averments made in the first
information would go to show that, the first informant has not
spoken about the presence of any other persons at the place of
the incident, when the petitioners allegedly had abused her
referring to her caste. For the purpose of attracting the offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,
the alleged act should have been committed by the accused in
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369
CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023
any place within the public view. In the case on hand, the
incident had taken place near the staff quarters of the police
department and in the first information, the presence of any
others in the place where the incident in question had taken
place has not been stated. Though the incident had taken place
on 19.06.2023 at about 18.30 hours, the first information was
submitted on 20.06.2023 at about 13.45 hours. In the further
statement of the first informant that was recorded belatedly on
01.07.2023, for the first time she has made an allegation that
the petitioners had abused her referring to her caste in the
presence of C.W.5-Smt. Aishwarya, C.W.6-Smt. Renuka and
C.W.7-Smt. Poonam. The statement of the aforesaid
eyewitnesses was recorded subsequent to the further
statement of the first informant. Perusal of the statement of
C.W.5 to C.W.7 would go to show that, they were not present
at the place of incident and on the other hand, they had
witnessed the said incident from the second floor of the
building in which they were residing. Therefore, even if the
incident in question is captured in the CCTV camera, the
presence of the aforesaid eyewitnesses at the spot cannot be
established from the same. It is only based on the belated
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369
CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023
subsequent statement of the first informant and the statement
of the alleged eyewitnesses, the petitioners are now charge-
sheeted for the alleged offences, though the averments made
in the first informant against the petitioner do not contain
sufficient ingredients to invoke the offence punishable under
the provisions of ST/ST (POA) Act, against the petitioners. The
respondent No.2 who is served in the matter has remained un-
represented before this Court. The dispute is between the
family members of two serving Police Officers and considering
the nature of allegations found against the petitioners, I am of
the opinion that, it is a fit case wherein, this Court is required
to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in order to meet the ends of
justice. Accordingly, the following order:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed;
(ii) The entire proceedings in Special Case
(SC/ST) No.49/2023 pending before the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, arising out
of Crime No.144/2023, registered by Brahmpur
Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369
CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) & (S) of
SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is quashed as against the
petitioners herein.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SVH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
CT:PK
[ad_1]
Source link