H VISHWANATH POOJARY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for the relief of quashing the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent in C.C.No.1/2016 and the order of investigation passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, at Udupi (henceforth for brevity referred to as "Sessions Court"), in Crime No.34/2016 of the 1st respondent-Police Station.

(2.) The summary of the allegation made in the complaint said to have been filed by respondent No.2 herein against the present petitioners under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Sessions Court is that the petitioners herein, who are the accused in the said private complaint, at the relevant point of time being the Chief Executive Officers of the respective Taluk Panchayath and Zilla Panchayath shown against their names in the cause title of the complaint, have by misusing their position and only with an intention to harass and humiliate the complainant for the reason that he belongs to scheduled caste, have alleged various misdeeds and irregularities upon him and submitted false report, thereby made him to face the domestic enquiry. The Sessions Judge after receipt of the said complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, referred the matter for investigation. The 1st respondent-Police have registered FIR in that regard in Crime No.34/2016 of their police station against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(viii), 3(1)(9), 3 (2)(2), 3 (2)(6), 3(2)(vii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (henceforth for brevity referred to as "SC/ST Act").

(3.) The contention of the petitioners, as well the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a private complaint has been filed by the 2nd respondent only to harass them and it is purely an abuse of process of law. Further the complaint filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure is without any affidavit by the complainant, as such, the complaint is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 .