By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: Reportedly Dr Priya after getting the anticipatory bail from court returned to Kalbugi and gave the following statement to police and Registrar CUK and other important people in CUK and district administration. It is reportedthat she sought police protections and security . The foloowi9ng is the reported statement reproduced for the benefit of our readers.
1.The complaint filed by Mr. Nagraj Kambale is false, frivolous, baseless and defamatory. Since based on this complaint the FIR is registered, I reserve my right to filea Petition / Application u/s 482, before the High Court, for the quashing of said FIR, on the ground that
(a) "acts” and "omission” attributed towards the accused person in the FIR does not constitute any offence; or
(b) No incidence of offence as alleged in the FIR has happened; or
(c) the FIR contains "bare allegation” without attributing whatsoever "acts or omission” on the part of the accused person, towards the commission of the offences.
(d) There is no material evidence or even intent which attracts any provision of the Atrocity Act under which this complaint is filed.
2.I am Dr. Priya Narayanan M.Sc, Ph.D, W/o Srihari Srinivasan, aged 37 (DOB: 14th Nov. 1979). I am working as Assistant Professor in Department of Geography, School of Earth Sciences, and Central University of Karnataka since 7th March 2011.
3.I am discharging my duties sincerely hitherto. As a Central University Employee I need to follow Central University Act and statutes and UGC / MHRD guidelines and the Government of India rules as issued and amended from time to time.
4.The University declared its summer vacation for faculties from 23rd April 2016 to 12th June 2016(Enclosure 1). Hence, 23rd April 2016 I left the station (Gulbarga). On the request of our Controller of Examination, I assumed charge of Central University Observer for the Central University Common Entrance Test for Bangalore Centre on the 21st and 22nd May 2016(Enclosure 2). Upon successful conduct of the CUCET exams I came back to my office at Gulbarga on the 23rd May 2016 to handover the used OMR answer sheets for evaluation (Enclosure 3).
5.Upon my return I was surprised and shocked to see the Portrait of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in my cabin, right beside my seat as no other Portrait is put in every room of the University. I enquired the staff available about the display of Portrait. I also enquired any directions of circular issued by Registrar or Vice chancellor regarding this Portrait. They replied that no such circulars were received by them. I neither received any circular in person through email as a common practice in our University not I received any circular in hard copy by hand. Since displaying the Portrait or any leader's or personalities without the concurrence or orders of appropriate authorities is in contravention to the rules and procedures laid down by the Government of India, I was afraid that this would set a wrong precedence. As university professor I did not find any UGC and MHRD and CUK Circulars or Government of Karnataka circulars in respect of any portraits to be hung in every room of University and UGC Circular in respect of 125 Birth Anniversary of Dr Ambedklar does not contain any thing about keeping Dr. B.R. Ambedkar portraits in every room of all universities (Enclosure 4 & 5). Hence, I safely and respectfully returned the Portrait to the Registrar with a letter (Enclosure 6) and this is internal administrative matter. Even otherwise, as it is the admitted case that the portrait was removed respectfully and thereafter handed over to registrar office with a promise of re-fixing it after official receipt of official circular from registrar office under intimation to all.It may be please noted that the portrait was neither destroyed, damaged nor defiled. The allegations made in the complaint, even if it is read in entirety, do not constitute any offence either under the provisions of the SC & ST Act or Indian Penal Code.
6.On plain reading of the compliant nowhere it is alleged that I raised the caste of complainant or Dr. B.R. Ambedkar with a intent to humiliate and on the date of compliant 25-04-2016, I returned to Banglaore on 23rd May 2016.I was not in CUK Campus (Enclosure 7,8,9,10 and 11) on the day that I am alleged in the FIR.This is a sheer evidence of haste and hatred with which the FIR is filed by Mr. Nagrah Kamble and his supporters.I have not insulted and I did not humiliate anybody by calling with caste name .No such allegations are made in the compliant. This is purely an administrative matter As Dr Shivakumar Deene coordinator SC ST Cell CUK circular dated 21st April 2016, which figured in the FIR but was not circulated to any staff of Central University of Karnataka, hence I did not receive the circular and is not issued by registrar of University as such it is illegal. I am bound to obey and respectfully display theDr. B.R. Ambedkar portrait for that matter any other portraits as ordered by theRegistrar of University as obedient servant of university.Dr Shivakumar Deene coordinator SC ST Cell CUK's circular dated 21st April 2016 is forcibly asking everybody to put 250 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Portrait in every room of Central University of Karnataka which is outrageous and illogical and those who are opposing his circular are facing such atrocity cases which is outrageous, illegal flagrant misuse of the said Act and without authority of Law. As per Central University Act and statutes and UGC and MHRD guidelines only Registrar of University has legal authority to issue administrative circular.The same I have requested the Registrar and Vice chance through my email letter dated 28th May, 9th June and 15th June (Enclosure 12,13,& 14).
7.Registering an FIR for this issue is thus illegal and void and unwarranted and immediately need to be withdrawn as it is a complaint motivated purely by personal vested interests. Hence I request your kind-self to file a "B” report” as no SC ST Persons can feel insulted of their caste as the act is simple demand of an official circular to put the portrait and even otherwise "the portraits of Dr.Ambedkar and Buddha, did not by itself demonstrate that the portraits or flags were representative of the Scheduled Caste community”. So SC ST Cell cannot feel itself as insulted and cannot give compliant of any atrocities on portrait issue as it is not an SC ST issue or a castes issue. (Enclosure 15 & 16).Even otherwise, as it is the admitted case that the portrait was removed respectfully and thereafter handed over to registrar office with a promise of re-fixing it after official receipt of official circular from registrar office under intimation to alland neither portrait wasdestroyed, damaged nor defiled, the allegations made in the complaint, even if it is read in entirety, do not constitute any offence either under the provisions of the SC & ST Act or Indian Penal Code..
8.So by all these mentioned above, I humbly submit that I have no single iota of intentions to disgrace or humiliate Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, but for a proper instructions/circular from my office to hang the portrait. I have been falsely alleged under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1999. I had also written official email communications to my registrar and vice chancellor requesting them to issue a circular on 28th May 2016, 9th June 2016 and 15th June 2016, but did not get any appropriate reply from them.
9.I am herewith providing Citations of Karnataka High Court Maqbool vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2013 " IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGADATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013BEFORETHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDYRIMINAL APPEAL NO.734 OF 2008 it is held that "the portraits of Dr.Ambedkar and Buddha, did not by itself demonstrate that the portraits or flags were representative of the Scheduled Caste community. ------Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the court below is set aside. The appellants are acquitted. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded.” and also in citation in Madras High Court Tindivanam Advocates ... vs The Director General Of Police on 27 April, 2015 it was held that "However, such respect shown to our great leader is in no way degraded by the act of removal of his portrait regarding the reason for which two different versions available and over the issue both the Associations of Tindivanam also got divided. Though the act of removal is likely to hurt the feelings of his followers, the same would not amount to constituting any illegal act, attracting the penal provisions either under SC & ST Act or IPC and the same does not warrant initiation of any criminal action against the Judge concerned. When no case is even prima facie made out against the Judge concerned for any offence under any of the provisions, the question of issuing any direction to the respondent police to register the case and to proceed against him either under the provisions of SC & ST Act or under the provisions of IPC does not arise herein. Hence, the petitioner is dis-entitled to get any relief in this petition.
10.According to Citations ofKarnataka High Court Maqbool vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2013 " IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGADATED 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013BEFORETHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDYCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.734 OF 2008 it is held that "the portraits of Dr.Ambedkar and Buddha, did not by itself demonstrate that the portraits or flags were representative of the Scheduled Caste community. ------Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the court below is set aside. The appellants are acquitted. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded.” And hence registering an FIR for atrocities in connection with a photo or portrait of Dr.Ambedkarby Norona Police Station is illegal and void and unwarranted and immediately need to be withdrawn as it is politically and personally motivated by vested interests ."As no SC ST persons can feel insulted of their caste as my act is simple as I demanded only an official circular to put the portrait and even otherwise "the portraits of Dr.Ambedkar and Buddha, did not by itself demonstrate that the portraits or flags were representative of the Scheduled Caste community”.
11.I need security and police protections as I am returning to campus to perform my duties as per law. If anything happens to me and my property and my modesty then Dr Shivakumar Deene and Me Kamblae and Registrar CUK and VC CUK will be held responsible. I shall be forced to file sexual harassment cases against Dr Shivakumar Deene and Mr Kamblae as they had physical threats on phone made to me that once I land they will physically assault me and outrage my modesty and not allow straying in Kalburgi CUK Campus from the telephone number 9916975555 on the 25th May 2016.The return of portrait is appropriate, as the duty of Central Government Employee to abide the rules.But by filing FIR and threatening through phone to outrage my modesty, by instigating dharnas and protests in Gulbarga city, and forcing me to accept the illegal circular is an offence by section 353 of the IPC by preventing a Government Employee from her office duties.The Central University of Karnataka is also answerable to these chaos and defamation caused to me.For more than a month after the issue, upon 4 letter and email communications, the Vice Chancellor and Registrar have not reacted appropriately.The one letter that the registrar has written to me on 10th June is also misleading and do not share any circular from his office or an order from his office (Enclosure 17).
12.I reserve my right to file A Suit for exemplary Damages for Defamation or Suit for compensation for malicious prosecution to be filed against the person(s) who has filed the false complaint, and his supporters.It is admitted issuethat this case is all about the legalityand illegality of the circular issued by Dr.Shivkumar Dheene, the SC/ST cell coordinator,and malfunction of Central University of Karnataka's adminstration office to control the same. Wherefore, this is not a case that attracts SC/ST atrocity Act.
13.In this case no evidence has been led to establish this requirement for the aforesaid section. I pray your good self to render justice by filing B report as is this false allegation leveled against me with some interior, personal and willful motivations.