BENGALURU: In a setback to the Special Investigation Team (SIT), the Special Court for the trial of criminal cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs discharged RR Nagar BJP MLA Munirathna from the case of atrocity.
Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat passed the order on May 21 allowing the application filed by Munirathna aka Munirathna Naidu, seeking discharge from the case registered by the Vyalikaval police under Sections 3(1)(r),(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 153A(1)(a)(b), 504 and 506 of IPC, on the complaint filed by Velu Naykar for allegedly abusing him, using his caste.
The case was entrusted to the SIT within the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) by the state government. The court noted that the materials produced in the final report are insufficient to frame charges against Munirathna, and accordingly, he is discharged for the offences punishable under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and the IPC.
The court said that the alleged incident had taken place on May 18, 2024, at the residence of accused Munirathna, where he had convened a meeting of the contractors pertaining to his constituency.
It is contended that at that point of time he had summoned Cheluvaraju, a garbage contractor, to his office room in his house and had hurled abuses touching upon the caste of Velu Naykar, which was recorded in the Apple watch. On September 13, 2024, the said issue was brought to the notice of the complainant Velu Naykar, who was a close aide of Munirathna, and accordingly he had lodged the complaint.
To attract the rigors of the provisions invoked against Munirathna under the SC/ST Act, it is required that the abuses are required to be hurled with an intention to humiliate a member belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in a public place within public view.
However, in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to indicate the materials to frame charges wherein the allegations were hurled in a public place, and the alleged abuses hurled would attract the rigors of the provisions even in the absence of the complaint, said the court while giving reasons for discharging.
