H.P. Sandesh, J
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in Special Case No.41/2020 pending on the file
of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, read with Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the SCST Act’ for short).
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint with the police-first respondent making the allegation that on
07.03.2020 at about 8:45 a.m, when the complainant went near the house of the accused persons, they have abused and assaulted with iron-pipe and
also the brick and also abused taking his case name. Based on the complaint, the police have registered a case, investigated the matter and filed the
charge sheet.
3. The petitioner is accused No.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that no specific allegation is made against this
petitioner and only a reference is made that she took the name of the caste of the complainant and the only allegation against accused Nos.1 and 2
and they are not the petitioners before this court. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that in the complaint, an allegation is made that they
were pushed outside and taking note of the said averment in the complaint, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Hitesh Verma V. State Of Uttarakhand And Another reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584, and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.15 of
the judgment, wherein, the Apex Court observed that the incident has taken place within the four walls of the house and no public view inside the
house, then, the offence does not attract.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant brought to the notice of this Court, the sketch, which is available at page No.37 and
referring to the sketch, the learned counsel would contend that the incident place is mentioned as outside the house and not inside the house and there
are other houses at the incident place and the same is in public view. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.14 of the
Judgment, wherein, the Apex Court discussed with regard to the ‘place in public view’. Hence, the judgment cited by the petitioner is not
applicable to the facts of the case on hand and the same helps the complainant.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State would contend that the incident was taken place not inside the house
and it is outside the house. The complainant in the complaint made the specific allegations that by taking the caste name abused, whether the
eyewitness witnessed the same or not is immaterial when the complainant himself speaks with regard to making the abuse by taking the caste name.
6. Having heard the arguments of the respective counsel and also on perusal of the complaint, a specific allegation is made with regard to taking the
caste name abused the complainant. However, it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no allegation against this petitioner
with regard to the assault and invoking of the offence under Section 324 of IPC.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment of the Apex Court comes to the aid of the petitioner cannot be
accepted, wherein, the Apex Court discussed with regard to an incident was taken place inside the four walls of the house and no public view. In the
case on hand, the incident was taken place outside the house and the sketch also discloses that the other houses surrounding the place of the incident.
The learned counsel for respondent No.2 rightly brought to the notice of this Court in paragraph No.14 of the Judgment that the Apex Court discussed
with regard to the ‘place in public view’.
8. Having taken note of the incident was taken place outside the house and there are other public houses and one witness Venkatesha also in his
statement, he witnessed the incident of assault and also the abuse. No doubt, he has not referred in the statement that whether they have abused by
taking caste name or not, but the complainant statement is very specific that they abused by taking the caste name. When such being the factual
aspects of the case, the matter requires a trial. The disputed questions and the truthfulness of the statement of witnesses cannot be ascertained sitting
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is dismissed.
(ii) However, it is made it clear that there is no reference of assault against the present petitioner invoking Section 324 of IPC and the Trial Court
while framing the charge take note of the same.
In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
