- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7011 CRL.P No. 6047 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6047 OF 2022 BETWEEN: NARASIMHA .H S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ASSISTANT PRODUCTION MANAGER, RESIDING AT #14/21A, MES ROAD, NEAR MOTHER TERESA SCHOOL, BAHUBALI NAGAR, JALAHALLI POST, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE - 13 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A GOPIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, RAJANAKUNTE POLICE STATION, RAJANUKUNTE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA - 560 064. 2. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, ADD. JAKKURU LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, HOBLI, BANGLAORE CITY KARNATAKA - 560 064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1 R2 - SD - U/R, V/O DT. 21/10/24 R3 TO R7 ARE DELETED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH FIR AND CHARGE SHEET AND PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CASE Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7011 CRL.P No. 6047 of 2022 NO.460/2018, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 304A R/W 149 OF IPC AND 3 CL 1(S) OF SC ANT ST (POC) ACT989 IN CR.NO.04/2017. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.2 in Crime No.4/2017 of Rajanukunte Police Station pending in Spl.Case No.460/2018 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 304(A) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act (for short, 'SC/ST Act'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the first information with Rajanukunte Police station against accused Nos.1 to 6 alleging commission of offences as stated above. It is contended that accused being the Director, production in-charge and the junior artists working under - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7011 CRL.P No. 6047 of 2022 accused No.1 were in production of a cinema. CW.1 and her daughter Padmamma and about 150 other junior artists were engaged with the petitioner for the purpose of shooting in and around the under-construction apartment by name 'Prestige Royal Group of Apartment'. On the fateful day since the accused persons have not taken any precautionary measures, the junior artist Padmamma accidentally fell down and succumbed to the injuries sustained by her in Tower No.4. It is stated that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The mother of the deceased lodged the complaint and the FIR in Cr.No.4/2017 was registered and the investigation was undertaken. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed under Section 143, 304(A) read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act. Petitioner being accused No.2 is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 3. Heard Sri A.Gopiprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 served but unrepresented. Perused the materials on record. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7011 CRL.P No. 6047 of 2022 4. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following: REASONS 5. Respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information alleging against the accused that the deceased fell down and died in Tower No.4 of Prestige Group Apartment which is an under-construction building where the cinema shooting was under taken by the accused. The deceased was engaged as junior artist, and since no safety measures were taken while shooting cinema in the under-construction building, the incident had occurred. It is stated that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste and therefore Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act was invoked. Unfortunately, even while filing the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has invoked Section 3(1)(s) along with Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act. There is no - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7011 CRL.P No. 6047 of 2022 material on record forthcoming to attract the provisions under SC/ST Act, nor it is the contention of either the complainant or the Investigating Officer that the offence specified in the schedule was committed against the deceased, being the member of the scheduled caste, only because she belongs to such caste, to attract the provision under the special enactment. Even, the learned High Court Government Pleader was not in a position to justify invokation of Section 3(1)(s) or 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act in the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer. 6. The Investigating Officer being the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Doddaballapura, Sub-Division, is answerable as to why he invoked those provisions. It is a classic case and an example for misusing the provisions of the special enactment, which was enacted for protecting the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, but largely being misused simply because the deceased belongs to scheduled caste. When the facts of the case never give rise to invoke the provision of the special enactment especially Section 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act, the Investigating Officer is required to submit his explanation as to how he could invoke - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7011 CRL.P No. 6047 of 2022 the said provisions. Since no materials are forthcoming to invoke Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act, the same is liable to be quashed. 7. The prosecution has also invoked Section 304-A of IPC. The material on record discloses that the deceased was engaged as a junior artist while shooting in an under- construction, multi-storied building, and unfortunately the deceased fell down in tower No.4, sustained injuries and later succumbed to the same. It is stated that the petitioner being accused No.2 was the production in-charge is prima-facie responsible to take care of safety measures. The contention of the petitioner that the deceased went out of the way during lunch time, she fell down, and later succumbed to the injury, does not find a place in the charge sheet and it cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. Hence, I answer the above point partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed in part.. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7011 CRL.P No. 6047 of 2022 (ii) The prayer of the petitioner to quash the criminal case against him for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC is rejected. (iii) Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act is quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22