• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR WRIT PETITION NOS.57599-57602/2014(GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI YOGISHA HEGDEMANE AGED 51 YEARS SON OF LATE NAGAPPA RESIDING AT HEGDEMANE, NEAR GOVERNMENT ANGANAWADI SCHOOL, KASABA HOBLI THENGINAKOPPA POST, THEERTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 2. SRI SURESH AGED 42 YEARS SON OF LATE DAKAPPA GOWDA RESIDING AT KALLAADDE HUSE THENKABAILU VILLAGE, THENKAKOPPA POST THEERTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 3. SRI ASWATH A.S AGED 22 YEARS, SON OF SATHISH A.V. RESIDING AT ADINASARAMANE NEAR GOVT. LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL MUNDASKOPPA AKPAPURA POST ADINASARA VILLAGE THEERTHHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 4. DR. M. MOHAN ALVA AGED 63 YEARS SON OF M. ANANDA ALVA CHAIRMAN, ALVA’S EDUCATION FOUNDATION 2 VIDYAGIRI, MOODBIDRI MANGALORE TALUK D.K. DISTRICT. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMING) ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE - THROUGH THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, PANAMBUR MANGALORE- REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATTAKA 560001. 2. SRI SANJEEVA AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF LATE RADHAKRISHNA RESIDING AT MASTHIKATTE, MARPADY VILLAGE MOODBIDRI, MANGALORE TALUK D.K. DIST. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 R2-SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C. 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO. 220/2014 OF MOODBIDRI POLICE STATION VIDE ANN-A FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3[1][x] OF SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES [PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES] ACT, 1989 AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF KARNATAKA KORAGA [PROHIBITION OF AJALU PRACTICE] ACT 2000, PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL & II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAID CASE; FURTHER DIRECT R1 NOT TO CAUSE ANY INTERFERENCY DURING ‘ALVA’S NUDISIRI’ OR ‘ALVA’S VIRASAT’ PROGRAMMES. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 3 O R D E R These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in Crime No.220/2014 of Moodbidri Police Station vide Annexure-A registered for the offence punishable under S. 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Ss. 3 and 4 of Karnataka Koraga (Prohibition of Ajalu Practice) Act, 2000, pending on the file of Special & II Addl. Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru and all further proceedings in the said case. The petitioners have further prayed for a mandamus directing respondent No.1 not to cause any interference during ‘Alva’s Nudisiri’ or ‘Alva’s Virasat’ program. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. Perused the record. 3. The facts leading to these petitions are that on 14.11.2014, the Secretary of Union of Koragas (Koragas 4 Okkoota) filed a complaint alleging that on 14.11.2014 in a procession organised for the Nudisiri function at Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, Dakshina Kannada, a dance was performed by a group of persons by applying black colour on their body and wearing mude on the head and black dress around their waist. The said dance was performed in a way insulting the Koraga community. The said group dance was performed between 9.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. and it was organised by a person called Yogesh Thirthahalli and his team. All the persons who have performed the said dance belong to higher caste and they have performed the said dance with an intention to insult the Koraga community which belongs to Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered in Crime No.220/2014 for the offences punishable under the Sections as aforestated, vide Annexure-A, at Moodbidri Police Station. Upon registration of FIR, case was entrusted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru North Sub-Division, Panambur, Mangaluru City. 5 Being aggrieved by the registration of the case, the petitioners have come up before this Court. 4. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners would strenuously contend that the averments made in the complaint do not prima facie make out a case that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences. The petitioners had no intention whatsoever to defame or insult the Koraga community. The programme arranged on 14.11.2014 at Moodbidri was a cultural programme. The group dance performed in the procession was not at all done with an intention to degrade the Koraga community. Even during the group dance, no words were spoken against the Koraga community so as to insult them. Thus the petitioners have not committed any offence alleged against them and as such they are not liable for any wrongful acts alleged in the complaint punishable under S.3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 6 Ss. 3 and 4 of Karnataka Koraga (Prohibition of Ajalu Practice) Act, 2000. 5. Learned HCGP submitted that on the date of the incident, the group dance was performed imitating the members of the Koraga community. It clearly goes to show that it was done with an intention to defame the said community. As such there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings. 6. As could be seen from the records, Alva’s Nudisiri Cultural programmes are conducted every year at Moodbidri. During such programmes, several teams from all over the country participate and display their cultural activities. Annexure-F discloses that in the cultural programme held on 28.09.2009 at Mysuru Dasara Mahotsav, a similar group dance (Koravara Kunita) was performed and a certificate was issued by the organizing Committee. 7 7. Section 2 of the Karnataka Koraga Act, 2000, defines “Ajalu practice” as below: “ 2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) “Ajalu practice” means, performance of any act or ceremony,- (i) differentiating between Koragas and persons belonging to other communities by paying no wages or lesser wages to Koragas for using their service; (ii) treating Koragas as inferior human beings as compared to others; (iii) mixing hair, nails or any other inedible or abnoxious substance in the food and asking Koragas to eat that food; (iv) driving Koragas to run like buffaloes before the beginning of Kambala. (b) ‘Kambala’ means buffalo race in marshy land; (c) “koraga” means an Adivasi Tribal person belonging to Koraga community of any age. ” 8. In the present case, the group dance performed by the persons was not at all having any acts or words defaming the Koraga community in the public view. There was no other activity done to show that Ajalu was practised so as to attract the aforesaid ‘Ajalu Practice’. 8 Thus, there are no grounds to hold that the group dance was performed with an intention to insult or defame the Koraga community attracting any provision of Karnataka Koraga (Prohibition of Ajalu Practice) Act, 2000. There are no specific allegations in the complaint that during the group dance performance, the members of the dance group have uttered or spoken any words in order to insult the Koraga community. 9. In order to constitute an offence punishable under S.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it is necessary that a person should have intentionally insulted or intimidated a person with an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within pubic view. Said Section reads as under: “ 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- 9 (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.” As could be seen from the complaint averments, no such allegations attracting the penal provisions under Scheduled Castes Act are forthcoming. 10. In the decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS), the Apex Court has observed as under: “ 108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, 10 even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.” As already stated above, the complaint averments do not prima facie make out a case to constitute any offence committed by the petitioners. 11. The petitioners have sought for other reliefs namely, (a) to direct respondent No.1 not to cause any interference during ‘Alva’s Nudisiri’ or ‘Alva’s Virasat’ programme; (b) to declare that the impugned performance does not violate any law.

Load more

  11

Copy Link