Karnataka High Court recalls order quashing caste atrocity case against Infosys co-founder Kris Gopalakrishnan, IISc officials
Justice S R Krishna Kumar passed the recall order after the complainant, Dr D Sanna Durgappa, a former IISc professor, submitted that the earlier ruling was passed without hearing his side. The court observed that the complainant and his counsel were not present – either physically or via video conferencing – on April 16, when a co-ordinate bench had allowed the petition by the accused and quashed the First Information Report (FIR).
'Learned senior counsel for petitioners would not dispute that… the respondent no 1 or his counsel were not present… and that they were not heard on that day,' the court noted.
'In that view of the facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion… and in order to provide one more opportunity to respondent no 1 to make submissions on the merits of the matter, I deem it just and appropriate to recall the final order,' Justice Krishna Kumar stated. The matter has been restored for hearing on August 7, with the interim stay on proceedings extended until then.
The case involves allegations of caste-based discrimination, wrongful dismissal, and threats made by senior IISc officials and members of its Governing Council. Apart from Gopalakrishnan – Chairman of the IISc Council since 2022 – others named in the FIR include Sandya Vishwswaraih, Hari K V S, Dasappa, Balaram P, Hemalata Mhishi, Chattopadyaya K, Pradeep D Sawkar, and Manoharan.
The matter stems from a private complaint filed by former IISc assistant professor Dr Durgappa, who hails from a Scheduled Caste group. He alleged that he was falsely implicated in a 2014 honey trap case, following which he was terminated from service in 2015. He also claimed caste-based abuse and threats by IISc faculty and legal representatives.
The termination was legally challenged, but a settlement was reached, converting it into a resignation. Dr Durgappa received terminal benefits and agreed to withdraw related complaints pending before bodies like the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.
Despite this, he filed two more complaints in 2016 and 2017 under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which the high court quashed, noting that the allegations were an attempt to give a 'criminal colour to a civil dispute.'
In 2025, he filed a third complaint with similar charges and fresh allegations against two IISc legal representatives. This led to the registration of an FIR, which the high court had quashed on April 16, stating the claims did not constitute offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and amounted to 'vexatious litigation.'
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar had termed the FIR 'an abuse of the legal process' and permitted the petitioners to approach the Advocate General for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Dr Durgappa.
With Thursday's order, the matter is now restored for fresh hearing, giving the complainant an opportunity to present his case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
'Dalits refused booking of wedding halls in Tiruppur's Sivanmalai foothills'
TIRUPPUR: Wedding hall owners at Sivanmalai in Kangeyam of Tiruppur district are suspected of caste discrimination against Scheduled Castes. Officials from the district administration said an investigation into the matter is underway. It has been alleged Dalit people are finding it difficult to book wedding halls located in the foothills of Sivanmalai to hold auspicious events, including weddings. P Kalimuthu, district secretary of the Aathi Thamizhar Munnetra Kazhagam, said, "People from not only Tiruppur district but also from nearby districts come to the Murugan Temple at Sivanmalai. There is a belief among the public that if auspicious events, including marriages, are held at Sivanmalai, they will get the grace of Lord Murugan. But SC people are refused booking of private halls in the foothills of Sivanmalai." "Out of the 20 wedding halls two belong to the trusts of two specific castes. All other halls are private halls. The norms for halls state that all castes should be allowed. But these halls do not allow people from Scheduled Castes to hold auspicious events. The situation is similar in Kangeyam city. Hall owners fear people from other castes will not book their halls if they allow people from scheduled castes,," he added. "Scheduled Caste people are facing great difficulty in booking halls for auspicious days. Sometimes, they hold weddings in their village temples and host receptions and other events by setting up tents in their homes. Only a few socially minded people provide halls to SC people. The state government should conduct an investigation and take appropriate action in this regard," Kalimuthu further said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Woman's murder in Illinois: Judge sets Mexican illegal free; ICE arrests him back
Representative Image (AI-generated) A Mexican national accused of decapitating a missing Illinois woman and hiding her body in a bleach-filled container was re-arrested by US immigration authorities on Saturday (local time) in Chicago, months after he was released from custody despite facing serious charges. Jose Luis Mendoza-Gonzalez, a 52-year-old resident of Waukegan, Illinois, was first arrested in April after police discovered the body of 37-year-old Megan Bos in a container in his backyard. He was charged with concealing a corpse, abusing a corpse and obstruction of justice, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). However, shortly after his first court appearance, Lake County Judge Randie Bruno released Mendoza-Gonzalez under the provisions of Illinois' Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act. The decision drew sharp criticism from public officials who questioned the release of someone accused of such a heinous crime. On Saturday, Mendoza-Gonzalez was taken back into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at a market in Chicago. He now remains in ICE detention, DHS confirmed. The body of Megan Bos, who had been reported missing on March 9, was found in April. According to her family, she was last seen in February. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is it legal? How to get Internet without paying a subscription? Techno Mag Learn More Undo Investigators allege that Mendoza-Gonzalez kept Bos's body in his basement for two days before moving it to the yard, where it remained concealed for nearly two months. DHS officials said that Bos had been decapitated and her remains were found inside a container filled with bleach. "It is absolutely repulsive this monster walked free on Illinois' streets after allegedly committing such a heinous crime," a DHS spokesperson said. "Megan Bos and her family will have justice," as reported by Fox News. After Mendoza-Gonzalez's release in April, Antioch Mayor Scott Gartner criticized the laws that allowed the suspect's release. "I was shocked to find out literally the next day that the person that they had arrested for this had been released from prison under the SAFE-T Act less than, detained less, I think, than 48 hours," Gartner said. Gartner emphasized that there are several other serious factors in this case, including the nature of the crime, how long it was hidden, and the fact that the suspect is not a US citizen and could potentially flee the country. Mendoza-Gonzalez reportedly told authorities that Bos had overdosed at his home. Instead of calling 911, he allegedly broke her phone and kept her body in the basement for two days before moving it outside. Republican State Representative Tom Weber also expressed his concern about Mendoza-Gonzalez's release in April. "Someone that hid their body in a garbage can for 51 days after leaving it in the basement for two days, after not calling 911 [and] breaking a phone. Is this a non-detainable offense?" Weber said. "Should we not find out, wait for a toxicology report, anything?"
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
ED neither ‘super cop' nor loitering munition: HC
Chennai: Enforcement Directorate (ED) is not a 'loitering munition or drone' that can strike at will in any criminal case, Madras high court observed. A division bench comprising Justice M S Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan also said the ED is not a 'super cop' empowered to probe all matters that come to its attention. "There should be a criminal activity which attracts the schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and on account of such criminal activity, there should be proceeds of crime. It is only then the jurisdiction of the ED commences," the bench asserted. The court made the observations on a plea moved by RKM Powergen Pvt Ltd (RKMP) challenging an ED order dated Jan 31, freezing its fixed deposit worth 901 crore. Representing RKMP, senior advocate B Kumar, assisted by S Ramachandran, submitted that the petitioner was among five companies that were allotted the Fatehpur East Coal Block in Chhattisgarh in 2006. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai The allocation was later cancelled following a Supreme Court ruling in 2014 that declared such allocations illegal. The CBI subsequently registered an FIR but later filed a closure report in 2017, stating the case was a 'mistake of fact'. The trial court, however, directed further investigation, Kumar said. Meanwhile, the ED initiated an investigation under PMLA in 2015 and earlier issued a freezing order on RKMP's accounts, which was set aside by Madras high court. In 2022, the high court again restrained the ED from proceeding further due to the absence of a predicate offence, he added. The ED's special leave petition challenging the 2022 order was withdrawn from Supreme Court in 2024 after a CBI supplementary chargesheet was filed. Despite this, the ED froze RKMP's fixed deposits in Jan 2025, prompting the petitioner to approach the high court again. Kumar contended that the ED's order was passed without any new material and in violation of previous court rulings. Opposing the plea, additional solicitor-general A R L Sundaresan said, "…if there are any proceeds of crime, then the agency gets the jurisdiction to attach the amount, even if there is no predicate offence." As to the order passed by HC in 2021, he submitted that the court had not restrained the ED from proceeding further with respect to the coal allocation cases, and since the CBI subsequently filed a chargesheet, the ED can pass the present order. Recording submissions, HC said, "It is too well settled that where an act has to be done in a particular way, it must be done in that way and in no other way. The PMLA demands the existence of a predicate offence. When there is no predicate offence, initiation of proceedings under PMLA is a non-starter." "The essential ingredient for ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship, the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate offence and proceeds of crime," the judges said. The court ruled that the freezing order lacked legal foundation and quashed it.
