w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



K.R. Vijay Kumar v/s State of Karnataka by R.T. Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru

    Criminal Petition No. 2717 of 2018

    Decided On, 12 July 2018

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

    For the Petitioner: T. Mohan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: K. Nageshwarappa, High Court Government Pleader.



Judgment Text

1. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.107/2017, registered under Section 3(1)(viii) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act for short).

2. The intimation of the proceedings is served on the complainant Sri C.S.Raghu as per the report submitted by the Police Inspector, Upparpet Police Station, dated 7.7.2018. However, he has not chosen to appear before the Court.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!



3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader has not filed any statement of objections inspite of granting sufficient time.

5. The charge sheet is laid against two accused persons under Section 3 (P) of the Act, alleging that unable to bear the rise of the complainant, accused Nos. 1 and 2 instituted a false and malicious prosecution against the complainant in R.T.Nagar Police Station in Crime No.9/2017, under Sections 323, 341, 354, 504, 506, 509 read with Sections 34 of IPC. After investigation, the police submitted ‘B report in the said Crime No. 9/2017. Hence, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed an offence under Section 3(P) of the Act.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Crime No.9/2017 was registered based on the complaint lodged by accused No.1 viz., wife of the petitioner herein. The petitioner was neither a complainant nor a witness in the said case. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for the investigating agency to implicate the present petitioner in the alleged offence.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader, however, submits that the material produced before the Court prima facie make out the ingredient of Section 3 (P) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. He further submits that Section 18 of the Act creates a bar in admitting the petitioner to anticipatory bail.

8. Submission is considered and perused the records. It is seen that Crime No.9/2017 was registered based on the complaint lodged by accused No.1, wherein it was alleged that the complainant herein, who was then the President of Dalit Sena, had borrowed a loan of Rs. 8 lakhs from accused No.1 and failed to repay the said amount and when accused No.1 demanded for repayment thereof, he abused and misbehaved with her. It is not in dispute that after investigation, the respondent police filed ‘B report in the said case. There is nothing on record to show that accused No.1 has challenged the ‘B report submitted before the Court. Therefore, there was justifiable ground for the complainant to seek initiation of action against accused No.1 under Section 3(P) of the Act. But, in so far as present petitioner is concerned, he was neither the complainant nor a witness in the said case. He is implicated in the instant offence solely because he is the husband of accused No.1. Even though it is alleged in the FIR and in the charge sheet that accused Nos.1 and 2 have instituted false and frivolous proceedings against the complainant a member of scheduled caste, but the records clearly indicate that petitioner herein had nothing to do with the initiation of the proceedings in Crime No.9/2017. The implication of the petitioner in the instant case is wholly a misuse of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the Act cannot operate against the petitioner in maintaining this petition. On the face of record, the petitioner has not committed any offence under the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, he is entitled for order of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the jurisdictional Court within 15 days from the date of this order and on his appearance, he shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

a. The petitioner shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) with the one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

b. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court as and when required;

c. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses
OR

Already A Member?

Also