S M M NADGEER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. is against the order dated 6.4.2013 in Spl.C.C.No.343/2010 on the file of II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore, whereby the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners -accused for their discharge came to be rejected.

(2.) THE accused before the Sessions Judge, Bangalore are the petitioners herein. The case of the prosecution is that one Smt. Krithika, wife of the complainant Mahadev, was working as lecturer in Nadgeer Polytechnic college. Since she was running eight months, she requested the management for grant of two months leave, which was refused by the management of the college. When she asked for return of original certificates, they demanded Rs.18,000/ - from her. So on the next day, i.e., on 4.8.2010, she came to the college alongwith her husband Mahadev -complainant and approached accused Nos.1 and 2 S.M.M. Nadgeer - founder of the college and accused No.2 Manjula M. Nadgeer Principal of the college in the Chambers of the Principal and enquired as to why his wife Krithika should pay an amount of Rs.18,000/ - for return of her original certificates. Enraged by the same, the accused abused Smt. Krithika and her husband the complainant by taking their caste 'Kuravan' in filthy language and addressing them that if the employment is provided to lower caste people, that itself is wrong and thereby they were humiliated by accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused No.3 Madusudhan, S/o. of accused Nos.1 and 2, who is supervising the entire college. In the process, accused No.1 kicked the complainant Mahadeva with legs, accused No.2 pushed Krithika to the ground and accused No.3 caught hold of the neck of the complainant with their common intention so as to defame and humiliate them. As such, Mahadeva -complainant, who is an Advocate, lodged the complaint against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC r/w Sections 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A crime came to be registered against all the three accused and statement of various witnesses came to be recorded and after completion of investigation, charge -sheet came to be filed against all the accused for the aforesaid offences in Spl.C.C.No.343/2010. Cognisance was taken, accused were summoned. The accused appeared and filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for their discharge. The application was opposed learned Special Public Prosecutor. It was heard by the learned Sessions Judge and on merits by order dated 6.4.2013, the application came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application filed by the accused for their discharge, this criminal revision petition is preferred. I have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

(3.) THE point that arises for my consideration is: -