- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4738 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 419 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. SANTHOSH ACHARI @ SIDDA ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O RAJANNA, RESIDING AT NO.270, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, LAVAKUSHA NAGAR, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058. 2. SMT. SUJATHA NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O SADHANANDHA SHAHU, RESIDING AT NO.15, NEAR SOLLAPURADAMMA TEMPLE, INDRIPRIYADARSHINI NAGARA, DODDANA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 058. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA SHO BY RAJAGOPAL NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4738 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2016 2. SUNIL KUMAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LADU KISHORE NAIK, RESIDING AT NO.10, 4TH CROSS, PIPE LANE, ASWATHA NAGARA, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-560091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.09.2014 PASSED BY HON'BLE II ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPL. JUDGE AT BENGALURU(CCH-17) IN (PCR.NO.4/2010) SPL.C.C.NO.94/2015 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDR SECTIONS 108, 420, 504, 506(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(10) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 OF RAJGOPAL NAGARA P.S., BENGALURU DISTRICT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that this petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the husband and wife and their marriage was taken place on 07.08.2022 and in the said wedlock, child was born on 08.09.2003 and they lived together for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4738 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2016 sometime happily and thereafter differences are arises between them. It is the specific case of complainant that accused No.2 was coming very late to the house. The complainant advised to reach home within 6.00 pm to 6.30 pm and also in between them when the difference arises, came to know about that there was a illicit relationship between the accused No.2 and also the accused No.1 and even complaint went and spoke to the accused No.1 and also held a panchayat in the presence of parents and brothers of the accused No.1 during May- 2006 and did not bothered to the advice. 2. It is also stated in the complaint that all of a sudden on 17.06.2006 without the knowledge and consent of the complainant accused No.2 left the house of the complainant leaving behind the minor child in the house and missing complaint was lodged and case was registered in Cr.No.335/2006 and after a period of 4 days accused No.2 appeared before the said police and the Police advised accused No.2 to go back to the marital house. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4738 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2016 Thereafter accused No.2 lived with the complainant for a period of 3 months. It is also stated in the complaint that once again without the knowledge and consent of the complainant, left the marital house on 29.10.2006 with the child and went missing and one more case was registered in Cr.No.507/2006. The accused No.1 was also lodged the police complaint before the Rajagopal Nagar Police Station in Cr.No.428/2006 on 02.11.2006 about missing of his son accused No.1. Thereafter, filed M.C.No.1644/2007 and the same is pending adjudication and G and WC case is also pending. 3. It is also the case of the complainant that wife of the accused No.2 become pregnant with the child of accused No.1 when several cases were pending and also the accused persons are also started abusing the complainant in a foul and filthy language and also abuse the complainant by saying the complainant belonging to lower schedule caste people who do the meanest job of scavenging, sweeping, cleaning the toilet and gutter etc., - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4738 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2016 and also assaulted the complainant and threatened the life. It is also contended that in the complaint that accused persons called the complainant on 09.11.2010 at 9.20 pm near Shiva Temple, Rajagopal Nagar main road to meet them with regard to settling the matter. The complainant met the accused persons in order to settle the matter. The complainant went to meet the accused persons along with his uncle in order to settle the matter, but instead of settling the matter the accused persons threatened the complainant to give divorce to his wife and also demanded sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in order to give the custody of the minor child to the complainant and complainant expressed his inability. Having narrated all these averments in the complaint invoked Section 108, 420, 504 and 506 (B) of the Indian Penal and Code and Section 3(1) (10) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. 4. The counsel submits that having considered the contents of the complaint, Magistrate referred the matter under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and directed the police to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4738 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2016 file the report and Police also filed the ‘B’ report. Thereafter protest memo was filed and objection was also filed and also receiving the protest memo and objections, the complainant was examined and thereafter the Trial Court passed the impugned order taking cognizance for all the offences. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 5. The main contention of the counsel for revision petitioner before this Court that though offence invoked under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, no specific date and also abusing the complainant in any public place subjecting the revision petitioner for humility. Apart from that though contend that particular incident was taken place, there is no any material with regard to the abusive word used and causing of life threat and Trial Court committed an error in entertaining the protest memo and taking of cognizance in respect of the offences. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the revision petitioner and also his wife respondent No.2 both of them have obtained the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4738 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2016 mutual consent divorce and also contend that the respondent No.2 is not pursuing the complaint and hence this Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. This Court has issued the notice to respondent No.2/complainant and respondent did not choose to engage any counsel and contest the matter. However, the State is represented and the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently contend that the Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly the protest memo and also the sworn statement of complainant took the cognizance. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the State- respondent and also taking into note of particularly the contents of the complaint with regard to invoking of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 in paragraph No.14 made an allegation that they used the filthy language and also stated that abused the complainant by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4738 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2016 saying that complainant belongs to lower schedule caste people who do the meanest job of scavenging, sweeping, cleaning the toilet and gutter etc., but assaulted the complainant by accused persons and nothing is stated with regard to the particular incident on what date it was taken and only general allegation is made and ominous statement is also made in the complaint that he was assaulted and date of incident and also the timings and who assaulted, nothing is stated even though in the complaint allegation made against two accused persons. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the particular incident is not referred and the timings as well as specific words are not used and also that too in the public place with an intention to humiliate the complainant taking the caste name. 8. It is also important to note that in paragraph No. 17 made an allegation that complainant was called on 09.11.2010 at 9.20 pm., in order to settle the issue - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4738 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2016 between them and again ominous statement is made when he went to meet the accused persons along with his uncle, but instead of settling the matter accused persons threatened the complainant to give divorce to his wife and demanded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and here also they have not specifically stated that what are the words used to invoke Section 504 of I.P.C and also causing of life threat only discloses that demand was made to pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to give divorce and such averments are made and Trial Court fails to take note of these contents of the complaint and when the very ingredients of offence under Section 108, 504, 506 are not found and especially invoking of SC/ST Act offences also no materials are placed. Hence, the Trial Court committed an error in taking cognizance for the above offences. 9. It is also important to note that respondent No.2 who is the complainant also inspite of notice issued by this Court did not choose to appear before this Court and when such being the case and also when the divorce - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4738 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2016 also obtained by the revision petitioner as well as complainant that too by mutual consent. The order sheet discloses that both of them have filed the joint memo and in terms of the joint memo, marriage was dissolved dated 07.08.2002 and joint memo is also filed by way of affidavit. When such being the material on record, it is appropriate Section 482 of Cr.P.C or otherwise it amounts to abuse of process and hence, revision petition is liable to be allowed. The order of taking of cognizance for the offences referred above, requires to be set-aside. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Revision Petition is allowed. ii) The cognizance taken by the Trial Court vide order dated 22.09.2014 in Spl.C.C.No.94/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 108, 420, 504, 506(B) r/w Section 34 of I.P.C and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4738 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2016 Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55