K.S. Murthy vs The State of Karnataka and K.T. Srinivas

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this petition filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against him in Special Case (Atro) No. 30/10 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikere, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ''Special Act''). Respondent -2 is the complainant before the police.

According to the case of the prosecution. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint on 19.08.2010 inter alia alleging that on 07.07.2010 at about 10.00 a.m., while he was proceeding in front of Shilaja Haris hotel at I.B. Road, Kushalnagar, the Petitioner herein came from the opposite direction and on seeing the Petitioner, he (complainant) requested the Petitioner to appoint him as a reporter for the weekly, which the Petitioner was publishing and since the Petitioner questioned the experience of the complainant to work as a reporter, the complainant told the Petitioner that he has seen him in Mysore roaming on the streets as reporter of mysore Mitra Paper and at that time, the Petitioner herein abused the complainant in filthy language touching his cast and fisted on his chest and threatened him with dire consequences to his life. On the basis of the said complaint, the jurisdictional police registered the case in Crime No. 184/10 for the aforesaid offences and after completing investigation laid the charge sheet. During investigation, the statements of several witnesses were also recorded. According to the charge sheet papers there are eyewitnesses to the incident alleged in the complaint. If the materials produced along with the charge sheet are translated into legal evidence and if they remain uncontroversial in the cross-examination, prima facie they are sufficient to hold the Petitioner guilty of the offences alleged and under these circumstances, at this stage, there are sufficient, materials to proceed against the Petitioner in this case, as such, it cannot be said that the charges laid against the Petitioner is groundless. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Chandra Poojari Vs. State of Karnataka, to contend that in the absence of any material to implicate that the Petitioner had the knowledge about the caste to which the complainant belong, the offence u/s 3(1)(ix) of the Special Act cannot be attributed against him. Reading of the reported decision indicates that, the complainant and the accused persons therein were strangers and therefore, this Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the said case, held that no offence is made out. In that view of the matter, this Court exercising power Under Section. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure quashed the proceedings. However, in the case on hand, reading of the complaint and other materials does not indicate that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are strangers. On the other hand reading of the materials on record as a whole would prima facie indicate that the complainant and the Petitioner herein were known to each other as on the date of the alleged incident. Therefore, prima facie, it cannot be said that the Petitioner herein had no knowledge as to the caste to which the complainant belongs, in this view of the matter, the said decision relied upon by the learned Counsel has no application to the facts of this case.

Having regard to the discussions made above, I find no ground to entertain this petition. Hence, the petition is rejected.