“Law When Misused Ceases To Be A Shield And Becomes A Sword”: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Under SC/ST Act
The Karnataka High Court said that a pure and simple financial dispute between the partners of a firm is projected to become a crime under the SC/ST Act.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court while quashing a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), remarked that the law when misused ceases to be a shield and becomes a sword.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Petition filed by the accused, challenging the proceedings pending before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru, arising out of a crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act, and Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna emphasised, “The Courts must remain vigilant against the weaponization of criminal law for setting the civil disputes. The law when misused ceases to be a shield and becomes a sword. The complainant, to wreak vengeance or arm twist the petitioner for financial dispute, has made use of the criminal justice system. The subject complaint is a blade of vengeance, cloaked in the garb of law. A criminal trial, if permitted to proceed on the aforenarrated glaring facts, it would amount to an egregious abuse of legal machinery and would undoubtedly result in patent injustice.”
The Bench said that a pure and simple financial dispute between the partners of a firm is projected to become a crime under the SC/ST Act.
Advocate Shrinath Kulkarni appeared for the Petitioner while Additional Special Public Prosecutor (Addl. SPP) B.N. Jagadeesha and Advocate Mohammed Sultan Beary appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
As per the prosecution case, the Respondent (Complainant) and the Petitioner (Accused) along with two others were partners in the business of the real estate established in the name and style of “Green Land Infra” in Bangalore City. The firm was registered in the year 2011 and the Petitioner along with his wife and one witness had joined the firm as business partners. The agreement between the partners was said to be that the Complainant will be appointed as the Managing Director and the Petitioner would be nominated as a Joint Signatory Authority. All the partners came together with a vision to develop the lands belonging to the local farmers. However, after about a decade of the partnership, dispute arose between the partners particularly, between the Petitioner and the Complainant, on the score that the Petitioner did not sign several documents pertaining to the firm, due to which, the development at various places was stalled.
It was alleged that one day the Petitioner called the Complainant over phone and asked him to come near a ground. The two met and the Petitioner allegedly threatened the Complainant with dire consequence, if he did not receive his invested money back from the firm. It was also alleged that he hurled abuses referring to the caste of the Complainant. Resultantly, a Complaint was registered before the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE). The DCRE kept the Complaint for over three years and thereafter directed the registration of a crime. Being aggrieved by the filing of the charge sheet and issuance of summons, the Petitioner was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “The charge sheet however presents a miraculously enriched narrative – a classic instance of retrospective embellishment. The transformation between the complaint, statements and summary of the charge sheet is too conspicuous to ignore, as the name of the caste comes here for the first time. If the complainant was abused with the name of the caste, nothing prevented him to narrate the same in the complaint before the DCRE. Before the DCRE all that the complainant alleges is hurling of an abuse, do not display your casteist mindset. But, in the charge sheet the improvement is seen.”
The Court said that if both the Complaint and Statement by the Complainant before the DCRE are read in tandem, the only allegation is that the Petitioner uttered the words “not to show casteiest mindset”.
“Barring this, there is no other allegation by the complainant himself against the petitioner. This is more a rebuke than reproach. Furthermore, the element of public view is suspect”, it added.
The Court further noted that abuse taking the name of the caste of the Complainant with an intention to humiliate and intimidate the Complainant was never made by the Petitioner.
“The so-called eyewitnesses again are to be held to have been procured later, as there is no narration in the complaint that the incident was witnessed by two eyewitnesses nor the eyewitnesses would say that they accompanied the complainant to the ground. Therefore, the statements of witnesses, who are friends of the complainant, cannot be given any credence”, it also said.
Moreover, the Court remarked that the provisions of the SC/ST Act would not get attracted even to their remotest sense in this case and permitting further trial qua the offences under the Act would become an abuse of the process of law.
“… the entire episode of crime is a story twined on a financial dispute”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the proceedings against the accused.
Cause Title- Vilas Bhormalji Oswal v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5584 OF 2024)
