- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9691 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 803 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI. YARAVARA BOLLI S/O YARAVARA KUNJA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT KEDAMULLUR VILLAGE AND POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH P.H, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MACHANGADA NEELAMMA BIDDAPPA W/O MACHAGADA BIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O #106/A, H.BLOCK, 3RD CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR MYSORE-570 022. 2. SRI. BALEKUTTIRA GANESH @ B.P KAVARAPPA S/O B.M POOVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9691 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2021 R/O #106/A, H. BLOCK 3RD CROSS RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR MYSORE-570 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.S. DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.03.2021 IN P.C.NO.5001/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER Though this matter was posted for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in private complaint No.5001/2019 dated 23.03.2021 by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri sitting at Virajpet (hereinafter referred to as the 'Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9691 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2021 Judge accepted the 'B' report filed by the Investigating Officer and dismissed the private complaint filed by the revision petitioner herein. 3. The abridged facts of the case are that: The revision petitioner filed a private complaint before the Session Court against the respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(i)(r) and 3(i)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC & ST Act'). It is alleged in the private complaint that the complainant belonged to Schedule Tribe community and was residing near Smt. Mathanda Ambica Rani Subhash's coffee estate situated at Kedamullur Village, Virajpet. They worked as labours on the properties near the said house. Against this backdrop, on 08.04.2019, while they worked by a public road on the coffee estate of Ambica Rani, the respondents' car bearing No.KA-04/Z-0764 entered the coffee estate. Following which the respondents threatened the complainant/revision petitioner, verbally abused others mentioning their caste and further attempted to assault them. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9691 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2021 4. For the said act perpetrated by the respondents, albeit, the complainant approached the jurisdictional police, however, the said police failed to register an FIR against the respondents. Subsequently, after six months, the revision petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Sessions Judge registered in P.C.No.5001/2019. The learned Special Judge referred the private complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional police to investigate and file a report. Accordingly, the Virajpet Rural Police investigated the case in detail and filed 'B' report in the case before the learned Sessions Judge. This was notified to the complainant by the learned Session Judge. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a protest petition for 'B' report. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the protest petition and thereby accepted the 'B' report and dismissed the private complaint filed by the revision petitioner. The said order is challenged under this revision petition by the complainant. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9691 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2021 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred while dismissing the complaint by relying on the 'B' report filed by the jurisdictional police, solely on the ground that the alleged incident was committed not in a public place. He also contended that on perusal of the averments in the chargesheet, it categorically depicts that the incident occurred in public place on a road used by public. He also contended that the Sessions Judge failed to examine other materials placed by the jurisdictional police while filing the 'B' report. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. 7. Refuting above submission, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Sessions Judge after meticulously examining the 'B' report filed by the jurisdictional police, accepted the same and dismissed the complaint. He further contended that there was a civil dispute pending between Smt. Mathanda Ambica Rani Subhash and respondent No.1 in O.S.Nos.77/2018, 13/2019 and 22/2019 and this complainant was employed by Smt. Ambica Rani as admitted by him in the private complaint. Against this backdrop, to taint a civil dispute with criminal disposition he - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9691 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2021 filed a false complaint against the respondents. Further, the jurisdictional police conducted a detailed investigation by examining all the villagers and the material witnesses, who have categorically deposed that no such incident occurred as alleged by the complainant. Nevertheless, there is an inordinate delay of six months in lodging the private complaint. In such circumstances, the learned Session Judge has rightly accepted the 'B' report and dismissed the complaint. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on comprehensive perusal of the documents adduced before me, the sole point arising for my consideration is: "Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in accepting the 'B' report and dismissing the complaint by passing the impugned order dated 23.03.2021?" 9. As could be gathered from the records, it is undisputed that the complainant has categorically admitted that he was employed by Smt. Mathanda Ambica Rani Subhash and was residing next door of Smt. Ambika Rani. It is further - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9691 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2021 undisputed that there were three civil disputes pending between the said Smt. Ambika Rani and respondent No.1 herein. Albeit it is contended in the private complaint that on the date of the incident, the respondents abused the complainant by mentioning his caste and also attempted to assault, however, this remains largely unproved in the primary police investigation, as such, they failed to register an FIR. Interestingly, the complainant has not filed the private complaint for a period of six months thereafter. The said inordinate delay has not been duly explained by the complainant. On careful perusal of the 'B' report filed by the jurisdictional police, it is enumerated that the police enquired the villagers, however, they deposed that no such incident occurred as alleged by the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order, observed that the incident did not occur at public view, as such, the provisions stipulated under Sections 3(i)(r) and 3(i)(s) of the SC & ST Act, does not attract to the case on hand. 10. On meticulously examining these materials, I am of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9691 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2021 passed the impugned order. There are no good grounds to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 11. Against this backdrop, I answer the point raised above in the affirmative. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4