State of Karnataka vs P.M. Purushotham and Others

G. Narendar, J.—Heard the learned SPP and the learned Counsel for the respondents Sri. R.G. Halesha.

The facts of the case is that the complainant has preferred a complaint against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the provisions of Section 3(1) and (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also under Section 506 and 420 of I.P.C.

The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant was in need of financial assistance to purchase a vehicle in order to run it on hire basis and that his brother by name Purushothama introduced him to another person and he was also known as Purushothama, for the purpose of facilitating financial assistance to the complainant. It is not in dispute that, subsequently, the said Purushothama, the 1st accused, facilitated the loan transaction from Tata Finance and a sum of Rs. 4,48,632/- has been released in favour of the complainant. It is the further case of the complainant that the said Purushothama had also promised the complainant that he would make arrangements to have the newly purchased vehicle hired and introduced him to a Travel Agency. That as per the understanding, the Travel Agency would pay the monthly EMI to the Finance Company being a sum of Rs. 11,550/- and over and above that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and on this terms and conditions, a newly purchased vehicle is handed over to the custody of the Travel Agency.

It is thereafter submitted that, subsequently the Travel Agency appears to have defaulted in making the payment to Finance Company, resulting in the Financial Company taking coercive action in the form of seizure of the vehicle, attached to the Travel Agency. Aggrieved by this, the complainant has preferred the present complaint.

Subsequently, the accused/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. The said application was presented on the following grounds:

"(1) There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint;

(2) The complaint was the outcome of an after-thought;

(3) It is an outcome of dispute in finance transaction;

(4) There is no material on record to show that the accused knew the caste of the complainant;

(5) The presence of known eye-witnesses is not stated in the complainant;

(6) They are chance witnesses;

(7) The accused and the complainant are not at all connected in any way;

(8) The first accused is only a sales representative, and the second accused is a finance company;

(9) The complaint is filed when the loan was demanded back;

(10) There was no possibility of abusing the complainant by touching his caste;

(11) In order to aggravate the case, the caste abuse has been introduced;

(12) The third accused has been left out. He is the financier. Since he released back the vehicle to the complainant, therefore, he has been left out in the charge sheet;

(13) If the abuses are made without knowledge that the accused is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or not, it does not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989".

The premise on which the application for discharge is filed is that, the incident took place on 10.05.2005 and the complaint was lodged on 25.06.2005. There is an in-ordinate and unexplained delay of 46 days in preferring the complaint and that no explanation is forthcoming in the complaint itself as to what is the reason for the delay. With regard to the point of delay, the learned SPP would point out that, the complainant in his further statement dated 01.07.2005 has stated that the delay has occurred on account of pursuing the complaint before the Civil Rights Cell.

The next contention raised by the respondent is that it is an after-thought and that it is an outcome of a dispute in financial transaction to which neither of the accused are parties are acquaintanced with. It is further contended that the accused and the complainant are neither acquaintance nor friends nor neighbours and they are only inter-action was with regard to the facilitation of the motor vehicle loan and hence, they pleaded that there is no material on record to demonstrate any motive or mens rea for the commission of the offence.

He further submits that the accused never knew the caste of the complainant. It is contended that the 1st accused is a Sales Representative and 2nd accused is Financier and there is no personal previous enmity or any personal dispute between the complainant and the accused. It is further stated that the complaint is motivated by money matters and that the same is borne out by the subsequent conduct of the complainant whereby the complainant has chosen to withdraw the complaint against the Financier who chose to release the vehicle after the registration of the complaint under the protection of Civil Rights Act. Therefore, on the above grounds urged that the Court below found it necessary to discharge the accused.

It is strenuously contended by the learned SPP that the delay is immaterial and that the absence of eye witnesses to the offence is fatal cannot be accepted. He further submits that much reliance could not be placed on the allegations that the complaint is motivated by financial dispute. But the learned SPP would graciously concede that the findings of the lower Court with regard to the loan transaction and non-payment of the monthly EMI by the Travel Agent and subsequent release of the vehicle by the financier after the registration of the Criminal complaint by the complainant are true and correct. The learned SPP would also concede that there is no relationship between the accused and the complainant nor are they acquaintanced and that there are no instances of earlier inter-action prior to the alleged incident dated 10.05.2005 except when the complainant approached the 1st accused to facilitate the sanction of motor vehicle loan in his favour.

It is not disputed that, subsequently the complainant has withdrawn the complaint against the 3rd accused as the 3rd accused has released the seized motor vehicle after the registration of the complaint. It is also an undisputed fact that the complainant and accused are residents of different villages and that there are no instances of any inter-action nor is there any dispute or enmity between them. Even in the complaint nothing is stated by the complainant as to why the accused had abused him and that too by his caste.

In the background of the above facts, it is obvious that the complainant who has withdrawn the complaint against the 3rd accused after release of the vehicle by the financier is highly motivated by the seizure of the vehicle and has proceeded to lodge a complaint under the provisions of the law only with an intention to implicate the accused for ensuring the release of the seized vehicle and also to ensure the recovery of money from the Travel Agency.

In view of the above, I don''t find any injustice or error in the order of the lower Appellate allowing the application filed by the accused under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code permitting for discharge. There are no merits in the Criminal Revision Petition.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.