1

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AT BANGALORE
Crl. Misc. Pet. No. /2017

BETWEEN:
Sri. Mohan Kumar ...Petitioner

AND:
State by High Ground Police ...Respondent

INDEX

Sl.No. Description Pages C.F.Paid

1. Memorandum of petition u/s 438
Cr.PC with certified copy of FIR
and complainant.
2. Documents - 15 in Number
3. Vakalath
4. Process memo
5. Copy of petition to Public
Prosecutor

Place: Bangalore Advocate for the Petitioner

Date: 27/04/2017
 2

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF 2ND ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AT BANGALORE- CCH17
Crl. Misc. Pet. No. /2017
BETWEEN:
Sri Mohan Kumar
Physical Education Director
Govt. R.C.College of
Commerce & Management.
Basaveshwara circle,
Bangalore-560001. ...Petitioner/Accused No.5

AND:
State by High Grounds Police ...Respondent

MEMORANDUM OF PETITION U/S 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The Petitioner/Accused humbly submits as follows: -

1. For the purpose of issue of process from this Hon'ble Court, the address of
the Petitioner is as mentioned in the above cause title and the Petitioner is
represented by his counsel Dr. R. Ramachandran, Advocate, No. 7, 2nd Floor, B.R.
Ramu Building Burugal Matt Road, ( Diagonal Road), V. V. Puram, Bangalore-
560004.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. On 25/03/2006 Sri N.Naveen, a student of the R.C. College, lodged complaint

before the respondent police to the effect that on 10/03/2006 at about 2 pm
while the complainant and his friends were in the college premises students
 3

Chandan/ accused No. 1, Abhijit/ accused No. 2, Sanjay/ accused No. 3 and
Bhimappa/ accused No. 4 have abused the accused by caste and assaulted with
bat and retired to the principal chamber. The relevant extract of the compliant is
set out as follows “ “PÁ¯ÉÃf£À DªÀgÀtzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ
¤AvÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝêÀÅ. D ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ZÀAzÀ£À, C©ü¯ÁµÀ,
¸ÀÄdAiÀiï, ©üêÀÄ¥Àà’ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ GzÉÝñÀ¥ÀƪÀðPÀªÁV §AzÀÄ
£À£ÀߣÀÄß ‘£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ, E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¨ÉÊzÀAvÀgÀÄ
¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àæ²ß¹ »A¢gÀÄV¸ÀĪÀĵÀ×gÀ°è ¨Áåmï¤AzÀ
£À£ÀߣÀÄß KPÁKQ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ
UÁAZÁ° ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ ªÀÄqÀðgï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä AiÀiÁa¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ
eÁw¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁ¢UÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£É JAzÀÄ ¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁr
¥Áæt¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ¥ÀAiÀiÁðAiÀĪÁUÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄw߸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ
¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è DUÀ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄVzÀÄ©zÉÝ
¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è CªÀ£ÀÄ ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÀ PÉÆoÀrUÉ Nr ºÉÆÃzÀ
£ÀAvÀgÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ gÀPÀÛªÀÄqÀÄ«£À°è
EzÀÝAvÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹ PÉ.¹. d£ÀgÀ¯ï D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ
PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ” The complainant has further stated in his
complaint that he came to know that the accused No. 1 to 4 have assaulted and
abused the complainant at the instigation of the petitioner/Accused No.5 who is
Physical Education Director. The complainant has further stated in his compliant
that the petitioner/accused No.5 at Bangalore University Level Sports held earlier
had deprived the complainant and others of their participation in the sports.
Further the complainant stated in his complaint that the petitioner/accused No.5
has abused the complainant by caste.
 4

3. On the complaint of the complainant the Respondent Police have registered

a case in Crime No. 49/2016 U/Ss 324, 504, 506, 109 IPC r/w 3(1)(x) of the Indian
Penal Code r/w section 3(1) & 3(x) of the Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the investigation is under progress.
The certified copy of FIR is produced herewith as Document No.1 for kind perusal
of this Hon’ble Court.

GROUNDS

4. The Petitioner humbly submits that, the Petitioner has been working as
Physical Education Director in R.C. College since 15/09/2013 with impeccable
service record.

5. The Petitioner was shocked to hear that Sri. N. Naveen, student of R.C.
College has lodged compliant against the petitioner. The allegations made
against the petitioner are false and malicious. The complainant has not stated in
his compliant that where and when the petitioner had abused the complainant by
caste. Further it is clear from the complaint that the petitioner was not aware of
the correct caste of the complainant. For more clarity the relevant extract of the
compliant is re-produced here “§»gÀAUÀªÁV ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ JAzÀÄ
zÉÊ»PÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀzÁAvÀºÀ ªÉÆúÀ£ÀgÀªÀgÀÄ eÁw¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁr
CªÀªÀiÁ£ÀUÉƽ¹zÁÝgÉ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ
dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãɔ. Thus, the principle
laid down in Chandra Poojari v. State of Karnataka1998 CRI. L. J. 53 (Karn) is
applicable to the present case. In the complaint the complainant had alleged that
he came to know that at the instigation of the petitioner the accused No.1 to 4
had assaulted the complainant on 10/03/2006 at 2 pm in the college premises. On
 5

the date of incident i.e., 10/03/2016 the petitioner was engaged himself in a
seminar “Television media – Challenges faced by the Society “ being held at the
college premises itself from morning 11.30 till evening 4.30. The petitioner in fact
presented paper on “ A New Meaning of Education TV: from School to Audience
– A study”. To that effect a certificate was also issued to the petitioner. A copy of
the certificate is produced herewith as Document No.2. This itself shows that the
allegation made against the petitioner in the compliant is false and vexatious.

6. The petitioner submits that, the complainant had developed vengeance

against the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner was appointed as the
coordinator for Discipline Committee on 29/07/2015, consisting of principal as
the president and other nine teaching faculty as its members. A copy of formation
of Discipline Committee dated 29/07/2015 is produced herewith as Document
No.3. Further a copy of committee constituted for the academic year of 2015-16
for R.C. College is produced herewith as Document No.4 wherein the name of the
petitioner is forthcoming at serial No.5. There were quarrels and fights including
ragging between two students’ gangs in the R.C. College. One belonged to the
complainant and his associates and the another gang headed by the accused
No.1/Chandan and his associates. There were three important untoward incidents
had happened between these two rival gangs in the college premises on
03/03/2016, 10/03/2016 (the date of alleged incident in the present case) and
14/03/2016. Under the leadership of the principal the faculty members meeting
was held to enquire into the incidents occurred on 03/03/2016, 10/03/2016 and
14/03/2016 which had brought very bad name to the institution and matter went
up to the higher levels. A copy of meeting dated 14/03/2016 is produced
herewith as Document No.5. The petitioner was coordinator for the discipline
 6

committee. The committee looked into the complaints lodged from both the rival
gangs and held enquiries and issued suspension order dated 15/03/2016 against
19 students including the name of the complainant and the accused No. 1 & 4
suspending them from entering the college premises. A copy of suspension order
dated 15/03/2016 is produced herewith as Document No.6. The complainant
was very much enraged about the order of suspension and misconstrued that the
petitioner being the coordinator is the main man in passing the said suspension
order. In order to take vengeance against the petitioner the complainant has
deliberately included the name of the petitioner in the compliant as instigator.
Thus the principle laid down in Dr. Sau. Suryakanta Ramesh Ajmera Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others 2011 CrLJ 1803 is applicable to the
present case.
7. There was a complaint dated 28/01/2016 from a student Kumari
Hamsageetha against the complainant for ragging. A copy of complaint is
produced herewith as Document No. 7.

8. The petitioner herein submits that the mother of the accused No. 1 had
lodged a complaint on 14/10/2016 against the complainant and others before the
High Grounds Police for criminal assault and intimidation that on 10/03/2016 at
2.p.m the complainant and his gang had assaulted the accused No. 1 with knives,
bottles etc. A Copy of Complaint which is registered in Crime No. 42/2016 u/s 324
r/w 34 IPC is produced herewith as Document No.8. In order to counter this
complaint against the complainant, the complainant had lodged the present
complaint on 25/03/2016 after lapse of 15 days. The complainant and his
associates had given a complaint on 19/03/2016 against the petitioner to the
principal who in turn enquired into the incident and submitted report dated
 7

17/06/2016 to the Commissioner, Collegiate Education stating that the allegations

made by the complainant and his associates are false. A copy of complaint dated
19/03/2016 and the report of the principal dated 17/06/2016 are produced
herewith as – Document No. 9 & 10 respectively. Pursuant to the complaint the
Assistant Commissioner of police, Sheshadripuram, sub-division had sent a notice
dated 29/03/2016 to the principal of RC College calling for information about the
character and conduct of the complaint and the accused No. 1 & 4. Pursuant to
the notice the Principal of RC College sent reply dated 29/04/2016 to the
Assistant Commissioner of police, Sheshadripuram, Sub-division that the
character and conduct of the complainant and Accused 1 & 4 is not good. A copy
of notice dated 29/03/2016 and reply of the principal dated 29/04/2016 is
produced herewith as Document No. 11 & 12 respectively.

9. The petitioner herein submits there were several complaints against the
complainant prior to 10/03/2016 given to the principal by several students at
different points of time. The copies of the complaints are produced herewith as
Document No. 13 (4 in series). These complaints given by different students
clearly show the nature and the conduct of the complainant. In fact the petitioner
has failed in 1st, 2nd & 3rd Semesters in B.Com and was very irregular to classes. A
copy of Attendance Sheet and internal marks is produced herewith as Document
No. 14. A copy of result sheet is produced herewith as Document No. 15(3 in
series).
10. The respondent police had enquired the petitioner on 26/10/2016 in
respect of the complainant and recorded his statement.
 8

11. The offences alleged are false, frivolous and malicious thus this gets
jurisdiction grant anticipatory bail in spite of statutory bar as held the Hon’ble
High Court of Rajasthan in Girdhari Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cri. L.J. 1613.

12. The Petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient surety to the satisfaction of this
Hon'ble Court.

13. The grounds pleaded supra by the Petitioner comes within parameters laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 112 of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694.

14. The Petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions that this Hon'ble Court
will impose upon him as per law at the time of granting anticipatory bail.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Petitioners/Accused pray humbly this Hon'ble Court to
direct the Respondent police to release the Petitioners/Accused No.5 in case of
arrest in Crime No. 49/2016 U/Ss 324, 504, 506, 109 IPC r/w 3(1)(x) of the Indian
Penal Code r/w section 3(1) & 3(x) of the Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in the interest of justice and equity.

Place: Bangalore Advocate for the Petitioner

Date: 27/04/2017