Karnataka HC Quashes SC/ST Act FIR Over ‘Kokke Korava’ Line In Zee Kannada Skit, Finds No Intent To Humiliate

In brief

The question

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint and FIR, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The court held

The Court answered the issues in favour of the petitioners, allowed the petitions, and quashed the FIR dated 22 January 2021 in Crime No. 20/2021 registered by Ashoknagar Police Station, together with the proceedings arising from it.

01Facts

The complainant alleged that a performer in an episode of the television programme Comedy Kiladigalu, telecast on 16 January 2021, used the expression “Kokke Korava,” which he claimed insulted the Korama community.

pp. 7–10, 13

An FIR was registered as Crime No. 20/2021 for an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

pp. 7–10, 13

The petitions were brought by the performer and channel personnel seeking to quash the FIR and related proceedings.

pp. 7–10, 13

The petitioners contended that the expression referred to a hooked fish, was not used to identify or insult a caste, and that the allegedly offensive words were later removed from a repeat telecast.

pp. 7–10, 13

02Issues

i.1. Whether the allegations in the complaint and FIR, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

pp. 8–14

ii.2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and further proceedings.

pp. 14–16

03Law Applied

The Court considered the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, including the provision invoked in the FIR, and the principle that the alleged act must involve intentional humiliation of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in public view.

pp. 10–14

It relied on Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, in considering whether criminal proceedings should continue where the complaint does not disclose the offence’s ingredients or amounts to an abuse of process.

pp. 14–15

It also referred to Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of U.P., (2023) 17 SCC 615, for the requirement of intentional humiliation.

p. 15

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court considered the expression in the context of the comedy skit and accepted the petitioners’ contention that “Kokke Korava” referred to a hooked fish, rather than being used to identify the complainant’s caste.

pp. 13–16

It noted that the expression did not appear in the script and treated its use as a slip of the tongue, finding no material indicating an intention to humiliate a member of the Korama community.

pp. 13–16

In those circumstances, the Court held that the allegations did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

pp. 13–16