A Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has quashed proceedings initiated by a tenant under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleging that her landlords had hurled abuses against her inside her house.

In that context, the Court observed that, "Hurling of abuses as obtained under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Atrocities Act is required to be noticed. Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act directs that the abuses should be hurled in the public place; Section 3(1)(s) directs that the abuses should be hurled in the place of public view. Therefore, the abuses should be either in the public place or in the place of public view. The narration in the complaint itself is that the abuses were hurled inside the house. The presence of the complainant inside the house, at that time, is conspicuously absent in the complaint. Therefore, the very complaint itself is so frivolous that no further proceedings should be permitted to be continued."

Senior Advocate PP Hegde appeared for the petitioners, while HCGP KP Yashodha appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the petitioners approached the Court, calling in question the registration of crime for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

The petitioners contended that they had rented their property to the respondent in June 2018, but she stopped paying rent, leading them to file for eviction and rent recovery. The civil court ruled in favour of the petitioners, but the respondent failed to comply with the order.

Subsequently, an execution petition was filed, and shortly after, the respondent was evicted based on a delivery warrant. However, on the same day, Sayannavar filed a complaint stating that the petitioners had come to her rented house and verbally abused her by hurling abuses at her.

The High Court heard the submissions and perused the material on record, and subsequently observed that the narration of the complaint was quite strange. In furtherance of the same, the Court took the considered view that "permitting any further investigation into the complaint, would, on the face of it, become an abuse of the process of law as it forms a classic case where the provisions of Atrocities Act are misused by a disgruntled tenant who do not want to pay rent after taking the premises on rent and sought to scuttle the decree by not adhering to it. The delivery warrant being issued against the complainant, leads the complainant to register the crime as a counter-blast, wreck vengeance for what she has suffered as an order at the hands of the concerned Court."

In light of the same, the petition was allowed, and the FIR was quashed.

Cause Title: Sri V Jagadish Bathija & Anr. vs The State of Karnataka & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Karnataka High CourtJustice M NagaprasannaSC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Verdictum News Desk