Bengaluru: In a significant relief to the managing director, executive director and two employees of Malnad Alloys Casting Private Limited, Shivamogga, the Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings registered against them under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, and Sections 351(2), 352, 127(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Allowing the petitions filed by managing director Madhukar Jois, executive director Pratheek Jois and three other employees, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the complainant, BN Ravi, a production supervisor in the company, had misused the provisions of the law.
Background of the Case
According to the case records, a show-cause notice was issued to the complainant on December 13, 2024, citing production losses. Although the complainant denied the allegations in his reply, the company, not satisfied, appointed an enquiry officer, who issued a notice on January 15, 2025, asking him to appear for an enquiry on January 27, 2025.
The complainant subsequently approached the labour court, seeking a declaration that the show-cause notice was unlawful, along with compensation for alleged financial distress and a direction restraining the petitioners from engaging in caste-based discrimination. While the matter was pending, he filed a police complaint alleging criminal intimidation and insult.
Arguments by the Petitioners
Challenging the FIR, the petitioners contended that it was an arm-twisting tactic adopted by the complainant. They argued that no caste-based abuses were hurled and that there was no intentional insult linked to caste.
Court's Observations
After examining the material on record, including the complaint, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the allegations primarily relate to criminal intimidation under Section 351(1) of the BNS (earlier Section 503 of the IPC). He observed that the complainant had been working in the company for 18 years and that not a single instance of caste-based abuse prior to the dispute had been cited in the complaint.
The court held that the sequence of events indicated that the complaint was filed as a retaliatory measure following the disciplinary action initiated against the complainant. It further observed that the case reflected a misuse of the provisions of the Atrocities Act.
Terming the continuation of proceedings as an abuse of process of law, the court ruled that it would result in a miscarriage of justice and, therefore, quashed the case against the petitioners.
