Sri Ravichandranath @ Ravi Jesupatham v. The Additional Director General of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5522 OF 2021 BETWEEN:

SRI RAVICHANDRANATH @ RAVI JESUPATHAM AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI JESUPATHAM, R/AT NO.37, GOWTHAM NAGAR, ROBERTSONPET POST, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS - 563 122. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PATTABI C., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, NO. 1, 1ST FLOOR, DTE BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶2THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMNT, KOLAR TOWN, KOLAR - 560 101.

by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶3THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C JAGADISH, SPL. COUNSEL FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHING THE NOTICES DATED 25.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging notice dated 25.03.2021 issued by respondent no.3 at Annexure-A, this petition is filed.

¶2Sri C Pattabi, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was an ardent follower of Christianity and held various posts in administrative body of Our Saviour Lutheran Church, KGF, Kolar. That due to a split in congregation, there were number of civil and criminal proceedings initiated between

members of one group against another. As an offshoot and at instigation of one Victor Negaraj, who had filed PCR no.5/2015 before II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, a complaint came to be lodged before DCRE Unit, Kolar. Thereafter, impugned notice at Annexure-A came to be issued to petitioner by respondent no.3. It was submitted by learned counsel that petitioner had served in BEML at KGF and resigned in year 2004. Without any allegation of petitioner having transgressed any of law issuance of impugned notice was only at instigation of Victor Negaraj and without any basis. Relying upon decisions of this Court in Crl.RP. no.989/2012 (Smt.Yamuna) and connected matter disposed of on

11.01.2022 and Crl.P. no.7980/2014 (Dr. Shantharaj) disposed of on 23.02.2022, it was submitted that initiation of proceedings in respect of pre-enactment caste certificates would be illegal and abuse of process. Hence, impugned notice was liable to be quashed. Further, issuance of notice in 2021, nearly 16 years after cessation of his service would also substantiate abuse of process. On said ground sought for allowing petition.

¶3On other hand, Sri Jagadish C, learned Special Counsel for respondents opposed petition. It was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner for Tribal Development reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 had taken note of widespread abuse of caste certificates by persons not belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and had issued directions authorizing Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement to issue notices for securing information prior to initiation of enquiry regarding illegality of Caste Certificates. Further, under similar circumstances challenge of notices issued by DCRE were dismissed by this Court in WP no.14144/2008 disposed of on

16.01.2009. Since notice herein was only to secure information and did not indicate initiation of any proceedings, criminal petition would not be maintainable and sought for dismissal. By relying upon Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt.Geethanjali v. The Canara Bank, rep., by its General Manager, Bangalore and others reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4384, it was submitted that even in respect of pre-act, i.e., Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other

Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment) etc., 1990 and allied Rules, 1993 or Scheduled Castes, Committee constituted under enactment would have jurisdiction to decide on validity of caste certificates. In that light also petition would be untenable and sought for dismissal.

¶4Heard learned counsel and perused material on record.

¶5In this petition, petitioner is seeking to challenge notice issued by respondent no.3 at Annexure-A. Perusal of notice would reveal that petitioner is called upon to furnish information. Same would not indicate initiation of any proceedings under any of enactments. Though notice appears to have been issued on a tip-off by one Victor Negaraj, that by itself may not be a ground for holding it to be abuse of process. At same time referring to ratio laid down by this Court in Smt. Geethanjali's case, unless a caste certificate issued prior to enactments referred to above were cancelled as per procedure, they would continue to be valid. Insofar as contention that initiation of proceedings in respect of pre-enactment caste certificates would be untenable by relying upon decisions in Smt.Yamuna and in Dr.Shantha Raj's case. Relying upon

ratio in Smt.Yamuna and Dr.Shantharaj's case would not be justified at this stage as there are no particulars on record about date of issuance of caste certificate in favour of petitioner or whether employment was secured on said basis. Same would at best be matter for enquiry.

¶6Reserving liberty to petitioner to urge all contentions in case of initiation of any proceedings, petition stands disposed of. However, a period of one month is granted from today to file reply to notice, if not already given.

Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28