SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Sumanth G S/O Gopal Krishna … vs State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2012

Karnataka High Court Sri Sumanth G S/O Gopal Krishna … vs State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2012Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6944 OF 2012 BETWEEN:

1. Sri.Sumanth.G

S/o Gopal Krishna Bhatt

Aged about 32 years

2. Smt.Varamaha Laxmi

W/o Gopal Krishna Bhatt

Aged about 57 years,

Both residing at:

No.94, 13th Main,

1st Block, H.M.T Layout

Vidyaranyapura,

Bangalore-560 097

3. Smt.Seetha @ Seethakka

W/o Manjunath Avabhratha

Aged Major

Residing at: Khambadakone Post, Kundapura Taluk,

D.K, Udupi, Pin-576219

…Petitioners

(By Shri Rupesh Kumar. N, Advocate) AND:

State of Karnataka

Udupi Town Police Station,

2

Represented by SPP,

High Court of Karnataka,

Bangalore-560 001

…Respondent

(By Shri Rajesh Rai, GP.,)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.245/2012 of Udupi Town P.S., Udupi, which is registered for the offence P/U/S 498A, 506, 504 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act and Sec.3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders on this day, the Court made the following: – ORDER

Petitioners apprehending their arrest by Udupi Town Police in connected with case in Cr.No.245/2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, have presented this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking relief of anticipatory bail.

3

2. According to the respondent – police the aforesaid case came to be registered on the basis of the complaint stated to have been lodged by Smt.Reshma Yogananda, wife of the first petitioner and daughter-in- law of petitioner No.2 on 25.06.2012. In the light of the bar created under Section 18 of the Special Act, regarding application of provisions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and in the light of law laid down by this Court in the matter of Chikkappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2002 CRI. L.J. 518, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners regarding maintainability of this petition. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the complaint and other materials said to have been collected by the Investigation Officer during investigation does not prima facie indicate the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act and therefore, the bar created under Section 18 of the Special Act has no application, as such, the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C is maintainable. 4

3. In the light of this submission, I perused the allegations made in the complaint. Specific allegations have been made in the complaint that when these three petitioners came to the parental house of the complainant, while discussing the differences between the husband and the wife, the petitioners abused the complainant and her father by calling their caste.

4. The Apex Court in a recent decision in the case of Arumugam Servai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in Crl.A.No.958/2011 decided on 19.04.2011, has ruled that even calling a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe with their caste name would attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act.

5. Having regard to the allegations made in the complaint, at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that there are reasonable grounds to indicate the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the Special Act regarding application of the provision of Section 438 5

Cr.P.C would certainly come to play. Therefore, the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C in respect of the offence punishable under the Special Act is not maintainable, in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Special Act. Therefore, the petition is rejected as not maintainable.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GH

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation