CASE TITLE:
Bhimappa Jantakal@ Bhimanna & Ors Vs State Of Karnataka & Anr
DATE OF ORDER:
10TH MAY, 2022
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice M Nagaprasanna
PARTIES:
PETITIONERS:Bhimappa Jantakal@ Bhimanna
Praveenkumar Jantakal
Anantakumar Jantakal
Vinodkumar Jantakal S
RESPONDENTS: State Of Karnataka & Anr
Ramesh Gavisiddappa Ginageri
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Schedule Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
SUBJECT
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a person whose one parent is from the scheduled caste community and another from the forward caste must specifically plead that he is from the scheduled caste in his complaint under the Schedule Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
BRIEF FACTS
- The respondent, Ramesh Gavisiddappa Ginageri, filed a complaint against the petitioners herein, alleging that they abused him by using his caste name, Scheduled Caste, and assaulted and threatened him. As a result, a FIR was filed, and after an investigation, a charge sheet was filed.
- The petitioners in this case filed a discharge application before the Sessions Judge under Section 227 of the CrPC, which was denied on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioners to continue the trial.
- The petitionerslawyer, Neelendra D.Gunde, stated that the complainant is not a member of the Scheduled Caste. He is a member of the Vishwakarma caste, which is not a Scheduled Caste. The basis for this contention is that the complainant's mother belonged to the Scheduled Caste and married the complainant's father, who belonged to the Forward Caste, and thus he loses the status of belonging to the 'Scheduled Caste.'
- Furthermore, the incident occurred behind closed doors while the parties to a civil dispute were negotiating or mediating their differences. There is no one else involved in the discussions.
- Furthermore, a wound certificate is produced that shows no external injuries, indicating that neither the case under the Act nor assault under Section 323 of the IPC or intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC exists in the case at hand. Advocate B.C Jnanayyaswami for the complainant contended that because the mother is of Scheduled Caste, the respondent-son is also of Scheduled Caste. As a result, there is no warrant for interference in the case under the Act.
- The issue of assault or otherwise is a matter for trial, and this Court should not intervene at this time. For the prosecution, Advocate Ramesh Chigari stated that it is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come clean.
ANLAYSIS BY THE COURT
- First, the Court relied on the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Rajendra Shrivastava v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 2 Mh.L.J. 198, which held that a woman born in a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe who marries a person of forward caste is not automatically transplanted into the caste of the husband and cannot belong to the caste of the husband.
- Second, on the question of whether the complainant, who is the son of a Scheduled Caste mother and a Vishwakarma father, would become a Scheduled Caste member under the Act, the bench relied on an Apex Court decision in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 3 SCC 400 and a full bench decision of the Bombay High Court.
- According to precedent, a child born to an inter-caste couple with a mother from the SC community must plead and prove that he was raised as a member of the Scheduled Caste community.
CONCLUSION
- The bench looked into the other provisions of the Indian Penal Code and said that there is no reason why the complainant was not registered earlier.
- Furthermore, it stated that intimidation in the context of a civil dispute between the parties could not be dismissed because the complainant and the first petitioner are from the same family and were involved in a property dispute. Other offences under Sections 504 and 506 are not likely to have occurred.
- Following that, the petitioner’s case was dismissed by the court.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
