- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100022 OF 2020 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. JAGADISH S/O. HANAMANT BILAGI AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, 2. SADASHIV S/O. GUNDAPPA YARAGATTI AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, BOTH ARE R/O. INAM-HANCHANAL, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (BY ITS BILAGI P.S.), REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD. 2. KASTURI GANIGER D/O. CHANNAPPA GANIGER, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. INAM-HANCHANAL, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.7/2019 (CR.NO.161/2018) REGISTERED IN BILAGI P.S.) PRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BILAGI IN C.C.NO.7/2019 DATED 16/04/2019 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE AND THE ORDER OF ISSUING PROCESS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 448, 354(B), 504, 506 R/W 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.06.24 10:07:39 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) This Criminal Petition is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.161/2018, which was later registered as C.C.No.7/2019, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the complaint was lodged by Smt.Kasturi Ganiger, on 16.05.2018, at about 7.45 pm in the evening, alleging that, on the previous day i.e., on 15.05.2018 at about 3.45 pm in the afternoon, one Ramesh Madar along with petitioners herein, who were part of the victory procession, celebrating the victory of BJP candidate in the assembly elections, started shouting against the complainant and her family members on the pretext that they belong to congress party. 3. It is stated in the complaint that, the accused persons along with few other persons entered the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2020 premises and started abusing the complainant. When the complainant retaliated, accused No.1 hit her with a wooden log on the backside of the complainant. It is stated that, accused No.2 pulled the complainant by her nightie and he hit her with his hands. Similar allegations have been made against accused No.3. It is stated that, few other persons intervened and scolded the accused persons, and they left the place. It is only on the next day, it is stated, that the complainant went to the government hospital for medical assistance, and thereafter, the complaint was lodged. Learned counsel therefore submits that, it is clear from the statements made in the complaint that there is delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the complaint. 4. complainant has concealed the fact that, on the previous day, i.e., on 15.05.2018, accused No.1, Sri.Ramesh Madar, had lodged a complaint with the police against the complainant's brother Maliyappa and two others, who all belong to the Ganiger caste. It was stated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2020 in the complaint filed by Ramesh Madar that, while they were celebrating the victory of a BJP candidate, Maliyappa and others, who belong to the Congress Party, got agitated and they used abusive language against the complainant and others, and thereafter assaulted the complainant and others who belong to the BJP party. Learned counsel submits that, as an afterthought, Maliyappa got the complaint registered at the hands of his sister as a counterblast, when the accused persons never entered the premises of the complainant. Moreover, it is pointed out that, in the original complaint, it is stated that the accused persons entered the house of the complainant, and a different version is given subsequently retracting the earlier statement, while stating that the incident took place within the compound premises and not in the house. 5. Learned counsel would submit that, the reason is not too far to fetch, since the witnesses, according to the complainant, are her mother and sister-in-law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2020 Naturally, they are interested witnesses, and therefore, to get over the same, the scene is shifted to within the compound so that the support of few other witnesses could be drawn in. 6. Moreover, it is submitted that, at the behest of the elders, the complainant Sri.Ramesh Madar turned hostile in the criminal case, but without admitting the same, the case registered by Ramesh Madar was dismissed and the accused persons were acquitted of the charges brought against them. Learned counsel would also submit that, notice is served on respondent No.2 – complainant and respondent No.2 is not represented. 7. Learned counsel would also draws the attention of this Court to the wound certificate, where abrasions are said to be found on the knee of the complainant. Only tenderness was said to be present at the L4–L5 of the spine region, which clearly destroys the allegations made by the complainant that she was assaulted with a wooden log on her back. Learned counsel would therefore submit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2020 that, it is a clear case of counterblast and based on the political rivalry between the parties. 8. Learned AGA would however submit that, the case of the complainant is that, the incident took place within the premises of her house and the other incident, for which the complaint was lodged by Ramesh Madar, took place in a different place and not in the same premises. Even if it is true that, such altercations took place between Ramesh Madar, Maliyappa and others on the streets, that in any way would not give reason for the accused persons herein to enter the premises of the complainant. 9. Learned AGA would submit that, the complaint lodged by Smt.Kasturi Ganiger cannot be considered as a counterblast, since the complainant had nothing to do with the other incident and she was inside the house. It is her case that the accused persons entered the premises of the complainant and assaulted her and the complaint has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2020 been lodged. The case has to be considered weighing the evidence that could be brought on record. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA, on perusal of the petition papers, this Court finds that the criminal case in Special Case No.110/2018 was tried before the learned Second Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, having regard to the fact that provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were involved in the said case. It is also clear from a plain reading of the judgment dated 10.05.2012 passed in Special Case No.110/2018, that the complainant therein, i.e., accused No.1 herein, Ramesh Madar, deposed that about 3 years back, some oral altercations took place between himself and the accused in respect of Panchayat elections, and in that regard his signature was obtained by the police on Ex.P1-complaint, but he does not know its contents. The complainant therein stated that he does not know as to why his signature was obtained by the police on Ex.P2 and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2020 as to why his signature was taken at that point of time. He deposed that accused have never abused him by taking the name of his caste nor they assaulted. In that view of the matter, complainant/P.W.1 was treated as hostile and the learned Public Prosecutor cross-examined P.W.1. The special case ended in acquittal of the accused persons, one of them is the brother of the complainant herein. It is also noticeable that the complainant has remained unrepresented though served with a notice sent by this court. 11. In this background, when the complaint lodged by Smt.Kasturi Ganiger, more that 24 hours after the incident, it can definitely lead to a suspicion about the motive of the complainant. If the complainant was seriously injured, her mother and sister-in-law who were present at the spot would have taken her to the hospital immediately. However, as borne out from the records, it is the specific case that the complainant went to the District Hospital 24 hours after the incident. It is only thereafter - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2020 the complaint was lodged with the police. In the background of the admitted facts that accused No.1 herein Ramesh Madar having lodged the complaint against Maliyappa, the brother of the complainant herein on 15.05.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and the complainant herein lodging a complaint a day after the said incident, it would definitely give rise to a suspicion regarding motive of the complainant in lodging the complaint 24 hours after the incident alleged herein. 12. 12. Having regard to the totality of the facts narrated hereinabove, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution of the petitioners herein as accused Nos.2 and 3 should not be permitted to proceed further. It is also noticeable that in the complaint what is stated against accused No.2 is that he abused, outraged the modesty of the complainant by pulling her nightie and beat her with his hands. Insofar as accused No.3 is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2020 concerned, the same allegation is made. Having regard to the wound certificate, it is also clear that the statement made in the complaint do not found support in the wound certificate. In that view of the matter, this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed. ii) The complaint in C.C.No.7/2019 (crime No.161/2018 registered in Bilagi Police Station) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, stands quashed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE gab – upto para 11 MBS – para 12 to end CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4