H. Billappa, J.:— The petitioner has filed this petition praying to quash the FIR in Crime No. 32/2016 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Bengaluru pending on the file of CCH No. 17, Bengaluru city.
2. Briefly stated facts are; The second respondent has lodged a complaint against the petitioner in Shahabad police station, Kalburgi. A case in crime No. 3/16 of Shahabad police Station, Kalburgi, has been registered against the petitioner on 08.01.2016 Thereafter, the case has been transferred to Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Bengaluru for want of jurisdiction. Subsequently, a case in Crime No. 32/2016 of Kumaraswamy layout police station, Bengaluru has been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable U/Ss 3(1)(11) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
3. It is alleged, the petitioner and his gang of friends harassed the complainant on social media. They mass trolled the complainant. One of the trolls put up was MCI degree certificate of the complainant and breached privacy. It is alleged, the petitioner abused religion and caste of the complainant and called complainant a low caste and she deserved to be humiliated. The petitioner came to know that her father had contested against Mallikarjuna Kharge from reserved constituency. The petitioner abused SC and told that they take benefits. The petitioner threatened complainant of defamation case.
4. A case in Cr. No. 3/2016 of Shahabad Police station, Kalburgi, has been registered against the petitioner and subsequently, it is transferred to Kumaraswamy layout police station, Bengaluru and a case in Crime No. 32/2016 is registered for the offences punishable U/Ss 3(1)(11) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2008. The investigation is going on.
5. At this stage, the petitioner has filed this petition praying to quash the FIR registered in Crime No. 32/2016 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Bengaluru.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint is tainted with malafides. The entire allegations do not constitute any offence, much less, offences punishable U/Ss 3(1)(11) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2008. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2008 as unconstitutional and it struck down. Therefore, registration of the case U/s 66A of the Technology Act is bad in law. Further, he submitted that the allegations do not attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(11) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, the registration of the case for the offences punishable U/Ss 3(1)(11) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2008 is bad in law.
7. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint ought to have averred that the petitioner was a member of SC or ST and intentionally insulted and intimidated the complainant with the intent to humiliate in a place within public view. The date, time and place where the complainant was insulted is not mentioned. The complaint does not make out even the basic ingredients of the offence. Therefore, it cannot be sustained in law.
8. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Basavareddy v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2014 SCC online Kar 6575, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the first information report, there is no specific allegation with regard to date, time and place and the exact abusive words used by the petitioner and therefore, the registration of the case U/Ss 3(1)(11) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is baseless.
9. Placing reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in LAWS (APH) 2001-10-198 the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions to contend the provisions of Section 3(1)(xi) or Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not attracted as the incident has not occurred in public view.
10. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 and decision of this Court reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence. The complaint is lodged with a malafide intention to harass the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No. 32/16 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Bengaluru city, pending on the file of CCH 17, Bengaluru, may be quashed.
11. As against this, the learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that the allegations prima facie make out a case for the offence punishable U/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. No doubt, the time and place is not mentioned, but the complaint need not be an encyclopedia. It is a matter for investigation. If basic foundation is there in the allegations made in the complaint to attract the provisions of Atrocities Act, that is enough to register a case.
12. In the present case, the allegations attract Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, the complaint or consequential proceedings cannot be quashed.
13. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 6 SCC 728, the learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that when the investigation is in progress, it is not proper to quash the proceedings.
14. Further, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 SCC 259, the learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that it is not necessary that the complaint should verbatim reproduce the ingredients of the offence. It is only in extremely in rare coses, the first information can be quashed. In the present case, the allegations make out basic ingredients of the offence. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
15. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
16. It is relevant to note, it is alleged, the petitioner and his gang of friends harassed the complainant on social media. They mass trolled the complainant. One of the trolls put up was MCI degree certificate of the complainant. It is alleged, the petitioner abused religion and caste and called complainant a law caste. Her father contested against Mallikarjuna Kharge from reserved constituency. Further, the petitioner abused SC and told that they take benefits.
17. Based on the complaint of the second respondent, a case in Crime No. 32/16 of Kumaraswamy Layout police station, Bengaiuru City has been registered for the offences punishable U/Ss 3(1)(11) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
18. Insofar as Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union Of India. reported in AIR 2015 SC 1523 has held that Section 66A of Information Technology Act is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the said provision has been struck down as unconstitutional. Therefore, registration of the case U/s 66A of the Information Technology Act is bad in law.
19. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, Section 3(1)(xi) reads as follows:
“Assault or uses force to any woman belonging to Scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty”
20. In the complaint, there are no allegations of assault or use of force. Further, the allegations do not attract Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the learned Addl. Advocate General contended that the allegations attract Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads as follows;
“intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe in any place within public view.”
21. The allegations made in the complaint are as follows;
I was in touch with Tajender Bagga for this case as he has a hold on the troll gang but instead he got violent and abused my religion and caste. He called me a low caste, he told me I belong to Scheduled Caste and I deserve to be humiliated. He came to know through Google that my father had contested against Mallikarjun Kharge, reserved constituency.
He abused SC and told we take benefits on phone call. I was very depressed. So I vented my anger in my tweets and Facebook page.
Now he threatened me of a defamation notice which I haven't received.
He also said he has political Influence and nobody can act on him especially person from SC.
I had forgiven them for their online harassment and deeds hut this Caste humiliation cant be ignored.
22. It is clear, the date, time or place is not mentioned. Further, there is nothing to indicate that the complainant was intentionally insulted or intimidated in any place within public view. Further, no case is registered for the offence punishable U/s 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, at para 6, has observed as follows:-
6. In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27-05-2004, the appellant abused with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent 3 in place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.
24. This Court in Basavareddy v. State of Karnataka reported in 2014 SCC ONLINE KAR 6575, at para 9 has observed as follows:-
9. Therefore, looking to the above said allegations in the First Information Report there is no specific allegations with regard to the date, time and place and also the exact abusive words used by the petitioners against the husband of the complainant in order to register a case under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
25. It is clear from the above decisions that the complaint must contain basic ingredients of the offence. In the present case, there is no mention in the complaint that the petitioner was not a member of SC or ST and that the petitioner intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant with intent to humiliate in any place within public view. Therefore, the complaint lacks basic ingredients of the offence alleged. Therefore, it cannot be sustained in law and liable to be quashed.
26. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No. 32/16 of Kumaraswamy Layout police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of CCH.17, Bengalura City, is hereby quashed.
27. I.A No. 2/16 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Atrocities) Act, 1989.