Shambulingappa vs The State of Karnataka and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Crime No. 30/2015 (Special (A) FIR No. 34/2015) for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 504, 354, 436, 427, 506 r/w. 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 registered by the ASI, Turavihal Police Station.

The records disclose that one Kemareddy Venkareddy has filed EP No. 47/2011 against 15 judgment debtors, wherein the Court has passed an order to take police protection for eviction of the judgment debtors and hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises in favour of the decree holder. In pursuance of the said order, it appears, the petitioner had been to the scene of offence i.e., survey No. 2/1 measuring 10 guntas situated at Nidigol village, Sindhanur Taluk, District - Raichur. In that context, it is alleged that with the help of the Police, the petitioner has illegally destroyed the huts of the complainant and others by setting fire and also abused the complainant with filthy language particularly taking the caste name of the complainant and also along with other accused persons, by name Shivraj S/o. Thimma Reddy, Umapathy Bommanala, Eranagowda Bommanala, formed into an unlawful assembly and in fact burnt the huts of the complainant and others and threatened the complainant with dire consequences and also abused them with filthy language in referring to the caste. Particularly, the complainant has stated in the FIR that the accused persons have abused specifically mentioning the caste name of the complainant and others. On such allegations, the FIR was registered for the above said offences.

The learned counsel also brought to my notice that on the date of the alleged incident itself, the petitioner has also lodged a complaint on 23.3.2015 at 8.00 p.m., narrating that when he went along with police to execute the warrant issued by the Police, with the police help, accused persons by name Hanumanthappa Kansavi and 15 others have gathered there and when the petitioner requested them to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the decree holder, at that time, they actually assaulted the petitioner who was the Bailiff, who went there to discharge his official duty with the police help as per the order of the Court, and thereby he sustained some injury and also other accused persons threatened him with dire consequences of killing him and etc., On the basis of such information, the Police have registered a case in Crime No. 29/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 143,147,148, 504, 353, 323, 506 and 149 of IPC.

Except one day delay, it appears, a case and counter case have been filed by the respective parties. At this stage, on reading of the complaint, it is very difficult for this Court to come to a definite conclusion or certain conclusion as to what exactly happened at the spot. Therefore, in my opinion, that has to be investigated during the course of full dressed investigation by the Police.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also drawn my attention to the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. and Others, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed that-

"Inherent powers of High Court u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised - Ingredients of Section 506 of IPC is absent in the complaint and hence complaint was not sustainable - materials on record proves no possession of 3rd respondent on said land and allegations of demolishing wall baseless - criminal complaint filed by third respondent false and frivolous - High Court to exercise inherent powers when abuse of process leading to injustice brought to notice of Court. Filing frivolous complaint being total abuse of process of law."

Further, the learned counsel relied upon paragraph 8 of the said judgment wherein it was observed that -

"8. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No. 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the SC or a ST and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the SC or a ST and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 to a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."

By observing that, the Hon''ble Apex Court quashed the proceedings.

It is to be noted that there cannot be any precedent of facts. The court has to vitualise and apply the principle on particular facts of the case available to the Court. Now, coming back to the FIR, in this case, the complainant is a lady by name Amaramma W/o. Durugappa Naik and the other accused persons name are also specifically mentioned and it is stated that they abused the said lady and others in a filthy language particularly, referring caste name. It is also stated in the second paragraph that complainant and some of the witnesses were also belong to Madiga community and they were also abused in a filthy language.

Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioner herein that they also belong to SC or ST community and on that ground, the petition is not filed. Therefore, when such a circumstance is repeated before this Court, it may not be proper on the part of the Court to quash the proceedings at this stage only on the ground that specific wordings are not used in the complaint.

On overall reading of the complaint, if it indicates that the accused person does not belong to SC or ST community and the complainant belong to SC community, in my opinion, such information even in the FIR cannot be completely ignored by the Court. Therefore, in my opinion, the above said ruling is not specifically on facts applicable to the present case.

Now, coming to the materials available on record as I have already stated that there are allegations made against each other by the complainant and others by filing case and counter case. But, during the course of investigation, the truth could be found out by the Investigating Officer and he has to submit a truthful report to the Court. The truth or falsity of the allegations cannot be ascertained with all certainty at this stage by the Court. At this stage, when the facts are hazy and the Court cannot come to a definite conclusion, in such circumstances, the FIR itself cannot be quashed. Therefore, in my opinion, it is too premature to come to any conclusion.

It is also said by the Hon''ble Apex Court in several decisions, even for any purpose summarily also materials cannot be appreciated or evaluated at the stage when the other materials are not available which has to be secured during the course of full dressed investigation. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court after the charge sheet if any is filed or any cognizance is taken against him by the jurisdictional Magistrate so that the Court can apply its judicious mind on the entire charge sheet papers in order to come to a definite conclusion whether it is abuse of process of law or not.

With these observations, at this stage, the petition stands dismissed.