In his complaint under the Schedule Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a person whose one parent belongs to the scheduled caste community and whose other parent belongs to the forward caste must specify that he belongs to the scheduled caste, is upheld by the High Court of Karnataka through the learned Judge JUSTICE M NAGAPRASANNA in the case of Bhimappa Jantakal @ Bhimanna & others v State of Karnataka and ANR (CRIMINAL PETITION No.101825 OF 2019).
Brief facts of the case:
The respondent, Ramesh Gavisiddappa Ginageri, filed a complaint against the petitioners in this case, stating that they had insulted him by calling him a Scheduled Caste and had also assaulted and threatened him. Accordingly, a FIR was filed, and a charge sheet was prepared following an inquiry.
The petitioners in this case submitted a discharge application with the Sessions Judge pursuant to Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was dismissed because there was prima facie evidence against the petitioners to continue the trial.
Neelendra D.Gunde, an attorney for the petitioners, stated that the complainant does not belong to a Scheduled Caste. The caste to which he belongs, Vishwakarma, is not a Scheduled Caste. This argument is based on the fact that the complainant’s mother belonged to Scheduled Caste and was married to his father, who belonged to advanced caste; therefore, he loses his Scheduled Caste identity.
In addition, the incident did not occur in public because the parties to a particular legal issue were engaged in negotiations or mediation. Nobody else is participating in the discussions. In addition, the wound certificate is presented, which does not indicate any external injuries. As a result, neither the case under the Act, nor assault under Section 323 of the IPC, nor intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC are present in this instance.
The complainant’s attorney, B.C Jnanayyaswami, claimed that as the respondent’s mother belongs to Scheduled Caste, so does the respondent’s kid. Accordingly, there is no justification for interfering with the matter under the Act. Assault or otherwise is a trial-related issue, and this court should not intervene at this time.
Attorney Ramesh Chigari, representing the prosecution, said that the petitioners’ innocence is a matter of trial.
Even if the mother does not lose her identity as a Scheduled Caste after marriage, it is not a given that the son has the right to protest that he is a Scheduled Caste and that the accused are subject to punishment under the Act. When submitting such a case on behalf of a kid whose parents are both Scheduled Caste and forward caste, the full complement of pleadings should be included.
Therefore, the bench granted the petition filed by Bhimappa Jantakal @ Bhimanna and others to quash the proceedings initiated against them by Ramesh Gavisiddappa Ginageri under sections 323, 505, and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
The judge noticed, “Regarding the Scheduled Caste status of the complainant, the complaint contains no factual information whatsoever. It is bland and ambiguous.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI