Vijay Kumar K.R. V. State Of Karnataka B... | Judgment | Law

Log In

• India
• UK & Ireland

x

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

• Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
  1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
  2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
• Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
• The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

Know more

Create your profile now Close Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.

• ONOFF Text Highlighter
• Bookmark
• PDF
• Share
• Report a problem

CITATION CODES Equivalent Citations citation codes CASE NO.

Criminal Petition No. 2717 of 20181

ATTORNEY(S)

Sri. Mohan Kumar T. Advocate

Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP

JUDGES

John Michael Cunha, J.

ACTS

Section 3(1)(viii) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (`the Act for short).

Sections 323, 341, 354, 504, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Is keyword research taking most of your time? Ask AMICUS! Are you a practicing lawyer? Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile. Click here to know more Upload pleading to use the new AI search Click here to upload CITES CITED BY VISUAL Karnataka High Court

• Vijay Kumar K.R. v. State Of Karnataka B... Karnataka High Court Jul 12, 2018
• SubsequentReferences
• CaseIQ(AI Recommendations)

(Jul 12, 2018) Copy Cite Case Information CITATION CODES citation codes CASE NO.

Criminal Petition No. 2717 of 20181

ATTORNEY(S)

Sri. Mohan Kumar T. Advocate

Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP

JUDGES

John Michael Cunha, J.

ACTS

Section 3(1)(viii) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (`the Act for short).

Sections 323, 341, 354, 504, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC.

See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary.

Vijay Kumar K.R. v. State Of Karnataka By R.T. Nagar Police Station, Bangalore, Rep. By Its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex .

The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.107/2017, registered under Section 3(1)(viii) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (`the Act for short).

2. The intimation of the proceedings is served on the complainant Sri C.S.Raghu as per the report submitted by the Police Inspector, Upparpet Police Station, dated 7.7.2018. However, he has not chosen to appear before the Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader has not filed any statement of objections inspite of granting sufficient time.

5. The charge sheet is laid against two accused persons under Section 3 (P) of the Act, alleging that unable to bear the rise of the complainant, accused Nos.1 and 2 instituted a false and malicious prosecution against the complainant in R.T.Nagar Police Station in Crime No.9/2017, under Sections 323, 341, 354, 504, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, the police submitted `B report in the said Crime No.9/2017. Hence, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed an offence under Section 3(P) of the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Crime No.9/2017 was registered based on the complaint lodged by accused No.1 viz., wife of the petitioner herein. The petitioner was neither a complainant nor a witness in the said case. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for the investigating agency to implicate the present petitioner in the alleged offence.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader, however, submits that the material produced before the Court prima facie make out the ingredient of Section 3 (P) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. He further submits that Section 18 of the Act creates a bar in admitting the petitioner to anticipatory bail.

8. Submission is considered and perused the records. It is seen that Crime No.9/2017 was registered based on the complaint lodged by accused No.1, wherein it was alleged that the complainant herein, who was then the President of Dalit Sena, had borrowed a loan of Rs.8 lakhs from accused No.1 and failed to repay the said amount and when accused No.1 demanded for repayment thereof, he abused and misbehaved with her. It is not in dispute that after investigation, the respondent police filed `B report in the said case. There is nothing on record to show that accused No.1 has challenged the `B report submitted before the Court. Therefore, there was justifiable ground for the complainant to seek initiation of action against accused No.1 under Section 3(P) of the Act. But, in so far as present petitioner is concerned, he was neither the complainant nor a witness in the said case. He is implicated in the instant offence solely because he is the husband of accused No.1. Even though it is alleged in the FIR and in the charge sheet that accused Nos.1 and

2 have instituted false and frivolous proceedings against the complainant a member of scheduled caste, but the records clearly indicate that petitioner herein had nothing to do with the initiation of the proceedings in Crime No.9/2017. The implication of the petitioner in the instant case is wholly a misuse of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the Act cannot operate against the petitioner in maintaining this petition. On the face of record, the petitioner has not committed any offence under the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, he is entitled for order of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the jurisdictional Court within

15 days from the date of this order and on his appearance, he shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- a. The petitioner shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. b. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court as and when required; c. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses. SD/- JUDGE

This is a paid feature. Please subscribe to download the judgment. Legend Size = Directly proportional to the number of citations Color = Jurisdiction U.S. Supreme Court State Supreme Court Court of Appeals District Courts Line Incoming = Cited by Outgoing = Cites Use AI to get other relevant cases. Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

Sign up to post X

Edit Citation

• Positive
• Overruled
• Negative
• Distinguished
• Referencing
• Uncategorized

* This field is required

Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Citation.

Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change.

Save Cancel

Add Equivalent Citation

Year * Enter a valid year Journal * Enter a valid Journal (must contains alphabet) Volume Page * Enter a valid page

Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment.

Add Cancel Key Phrases are not available yet.

CiteTEXT

Load More Found Vijay Kumar K.R. v. State Of Karnataka B... useful? Use our proprietary AI tool CaseIQ to find other relevant judgments with just one click. Try CaseIQ What do you want to print? Casemine Copy

Select Preference

Highlight Search Query Citation Codes Info Summary Print PDF Found Vijay Kumar K.R. v. State Of Karnataka B... useful? Use our proprietary AI tool CaseIQ to find other relevant judgments with just one click. Try CaseIQ

Share the Judgment

Share Judgment Link Share Judgment as PDF Judgment Link Send This Link To Citation Codes Info Please enter a valid email address. Share Close

How is this helpful for me?

Close

Are you sure?

By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here.

Appeared for -- Select -- Plaintiff/Petitioner/Appellant Defendant/Respondent Name of party represented -- Select -- Judgment in favour of -- Select -- Plaintiff/Petitioner/Appellant Defendant/Respondent Other Claim this judgment Submit Cancel

Are you sure?

Click here to remove this judgment from your profile.

Remove Judgment Cancel

Report a problem

Name * Email Id * Phone Number Message Submit Cancel

Alert

Copy Textarea x

Summary

x

Alert