- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5198 WP No.104380 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.104380 OF 2017 (SCST-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VAIJAYANTI BABU GOSAVI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, CHANDAN COLONY, NEAR ANAND NAGAR, HALE HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SHRI.VILAS S/O ISHWAR GOSAVI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, CHANDAN COLONY, NEAR ANAND NAGAR, HALE HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. SHRI RAMU S/O BHADRA GOSAVI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, CHANDAN COLONY, NEAR ANAND NAGAR, HALE HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5198 WP No.104380 of 2017 AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT, PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD. 4. THE TAHASHILDAR/THE PRESIDENT, TALUK, PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES HUBBALLI TALUK, DISTRICT: DHARWAD. 5. THE COMMISSIONER HUBBALLI-DHARWAD POLICE COMMISSION, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD. 6. THE ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD POLICE COMMISSION, JURISDICTION OF OLD HUBLI POLICE STATION, OLD HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 7. POLICE INSPECTOR, OLD HUBUBALLI POLICE STATION, OLD HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 8. POLICE-SUB INSPECTOR, OLD HUBBALLI POLICE STATION, OLD HUBBALLI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5198 WP No.104380 of 2017 TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 9. THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, (SPECIAL OFFICER), DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE: A) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 2 TO DISCHARGE THE DUTY TO REGISTER F.I.R AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 9 UNDER SECTION 154 OF CR.P.C FOR PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989. B. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.7 AND 8 TO DISCHARGE THE DUTY TO REGISTER F.I.R AGAINST THE ALLEGED PERSONS UNDER SECTION 154 CR.P.C., FOR PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(IV), 3(1)(V), 3(2)(VII) OF THE SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989. IN THE INTERSET OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5198 WP No.104380 of 2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to register FIR against respondent Nos.3 to 9 under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’ for short) and also to direct respondent No.7 to 8 to register FIR against alleged persons punishable under Section 3(1)(iv), 3(1)(v) and 3(2)(vii) of SC/ST Act. 2. Heard Shri Hemanthkumar L. Havaragi, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents - State. Perused the materials on record. 3. Petitioners have made serious allegations against respondents that, no FIR came to be registered against respondent Nos.1, 2, and 7 to 8, and therefore he is before this Court. Strangely, the first information, which - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5198 WP No.104380 of 2017 should be the basis for registration of FIR, is not part of the petition and the same is not produced till today. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no explanation for not producing the first information to enable the respondents to register the FIR. Learned counsel is also not in a position to highlight what is the basis for registration of the FIR under special enactment. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the petition is casually filed without any merits. 5. The order dated 23.08.2024 reads as under: Sri.Hemanth Kumar.L.Havaragi., learned counsel for the petitioners has appeared through video conferencing and submits that short accommodation may be granted. “This Court is not inclined to grant time. The reason is simple. The petition is filed in the year 2017. Now we are in the month of August 2024. The petition is pending for seven years. However, in the interest of justice and as a last chance, time is granted subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) to Advocates’ Clerks Association, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5198 WP No.104380 of 2017 Matter is adjourned. It is made clear that the petitioners will have right of audience only if the cost is paid.” 6. Accordingly, the costs of Rs.500/- is never deposited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In spite of that, when the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to address his arguments, he is not in a position to substantiate any of the contention raised in the writ petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3