Offence U/S 3(u) SC-ST Act For Promoting Hatred Against Community Not Attracted If Not In Public View: HC Grants Relief To Karnataka Golf Assn Office Bearers

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed,

"If the narration in the complaint is noticed with juxtaposition to the link in the chain of events, what would unmistakably emerge is none of the provisions under which the crime is registered would even prima facie get attracted, as even according to the complainant the entire thing has happened in the meeting hall where the petitioners were present and the complainant barged there. Therefore it is a place which is neither in public view or a public place. Section 3 (1) (u) of the Act makes the offence punishable for those ingredients."

It added, "The petitioners cannot be alleged of promoting the feeling of any enmity, hatred or ill will against the members of Schedule caste and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, none of the provisions of the act get attracted."

Case Details:

Complainant A M Suresh Raj was a temporary member of the Association since 2014. On an incident that is said to have occured in the year 2019, he was suspended from his membership after conduct of enquiry. In 2019, he again applied for membership under the category life member.

On October 14, 20020 a communication was sent to him by the association that he had not secured adequate number of votes to become a life member of the association. This is called in question before the Registrar of Societies. The Registrar of societies directs the association to hold fresh meetings and consider the application of the complainant. The association files an application for recall of the order.

Later the complainant files a civil suit seeking various reliefs including a declaration as rejection of his life membership by the association to be null and void and sought damages. The suit was contested by the association.

Later the registrar of societies by its order dated 19-05-2022 directs the association to consider the membership of the complainant within 30 days, thereof. After receipt of the order the association convened a meeting of the Managing committee to chalk out the next course of action.

On June 14, 2022 when the meeting was in progress the complainant barged into the meeting hall and demanded that the order passed by the Registrar of societies be implemented immediately, by inducting him as a member of the association. The petitioners claimed that the meeting was disrupted by the complainant and following which he lodged the police complaint under sections 504, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1) ( r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (1) (u) of the act.

Findings:

The bench on going through the complaint filed with the police said "The narration in the complaint is quite gory. Who has hurled what, is not indicated. Vague statements are made in the complaint and abuses have admittedly been hurled in the four corners of the meeting hall."

Then it observed "If the narration of the complaint is juxtaposed to the link in the chain of events as narrated hereinabove, what would unmistakably emerge is that the 2nd respondent is seeking to settle his score for the act of the petitioners for not having immediately implemented the order of the Registrar of Societies and admit him as a life member into the association. The complainant becoming disgruntled is seeking to use the provisions of the act against the petitioners in particular alleging hurling of abuses."

Noting that the format of the application form or the application submitted by the complaint, there is no column in the application that seeks caste status of a member. The bench said "Therefore, it is only a figment of imagination or a figment of imagination of the learned counsel representing that complaint that the complainants candidature came to be rejected only because of he belonged to the Schedule caste and the complaint belonging to scheduled caste was known only when he filed an application to become a life member and not till then."

Then referring to the Apex court judgment in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs state of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710. The bench held "Further proceedings against the petitioners cannot be permitted to be continued qua the offences under the Act, as abuses as alleged even if it is construed to have been hurled, the place of such alleged hurling can neither be construed to be a public place or place of public view."

The bench on having viewed the CCTV footage produced by the petitioners said "On all the totality of the circumstances, having found that the offences under the Act or under IPC would not get attracted in the peculiar facts of this case, permitting any further proceedings against the petitioners would be abuse of the process of law and degenerate into harassment to the petitioners and ultimately result in miscarriage of justice."

Accordingly it allowed the petitions.

Case Title: Dr M G Bhat & Others v. State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WP 11949 of 2022 C/W WP 12182 of 2022.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 506

Date of Order: November 2, 2022

Appearance: Senior Advocate A S Ponnanna a/w Advocate Nayana Tara B G for petitioners; K P Yashodha, HCGP for R1; C H Hanumantharaya, Sr Advocate a/w Advocate Abhinaya K for R2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order