- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34503 WP No. 40425 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 40425 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: THE UGAR SUGAR WORKS LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAHAVEERNAGAR, SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTED BY ITS BANGALORE OFFICE MANAGER SRI. N.S. NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.N.SHASHIDHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUHAS H.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. SMT. RANJANA W/O MADHUKAR SHINGE MAJOR, UGAR KHURD-591316 ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.C.MANJUNATH, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (ABSENT)); NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2 AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CASE NO.361/2016 ON THE FILE OF Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34503 WP No. 40425 of 2017 THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings in Case No. ೌಜನ/361/2016 on the file of respondent No.1. It has also sought for an order to declare that the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner contends that it has established a sugar factory, distillery unit and co-generation plant at Ugarkhurd, Athani Taluk, Belgaum District. It contends that it has taken all necessary measures to arrest water and air pollution and that many residents in the locality have been given employment. It contends that respondent No.2, who is a member of the Grama Panchayat of the locality lodged a complaint on 07.03.2015 to the Karnataka State Pollution - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34503 WP No. 40425 of 2017 Control Board alleging that the petitioner's unit was causing pollution resulting in respiratory problems and other health hazards to the populace. She also alleged that the petitioner had sent some goonda elements to assault her and accordingly, she had lodged a complaint before the Kagwad Police against three officers of the petitioner - Company and Police had registered Crime No.15/2015. When the case was being investigated, the Investigating Officer had dropped the names of the three officers named by the respondent No.2 in her complaint. The respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 21.08.2015 to the higher officials in the Police Department to take action to include their names in the charge sheet. However, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against some of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After filing of the charge sheet, the said case was numbered as Special Case No.76/2015 (arising out of Crime No.15/2015) before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short, 'the Special Court') for the aforesaid - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34503 WP No. 40425 of 2017 offences. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint to the respondent No.1 alleging that the Investigating Officer in Crime No.15/2015 had conspired with the officials of the petitioner - Company and for extraneous consideration was trying to let them off in the charge sheet. Based on this complaint, the respondent No.1 registered a case bearing No.ೌಜನ/361/2016 and issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the proceedings in the said case initiated by the respondent No.1 and has also sought for a declaration that the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of respondent No.2. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet filed in the case lodged by the respondent No.2 was submitted before the Special Court and cognizance was taken in Spl. Case No.76/2015 and that the Special Court after conducting trial, had acquitted the accused. He submits that the respondent No.2 did not give any evidence before the Special Court about the involvement of the three officers of the petitioner - Company. He also submitted that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34503 WP No. 40425 of 2017 respondent No.2 did not take any steps before the Special Court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) to include other accused. He, therefore, contends that the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner is a clear case of abuse of the process of law. Besides this, he contends that the petitioner had obtained necessary clearance and consent from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and the respondent No.1 was not justified in initiating proceedings against the petitioner as well as the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board which was beyond jurisdiction under the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002. It also contends that the question whether the officers of the petitioner had to be roped in the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer was not something that fell for consideration before the respondent No.1 and hence, the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner is beyond the scope and authority conferred on it under the Act. 4. The respondent No.2 though served with the notice of this writ petition has not appeared. Though the respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34503 WP No. 40425 of 2017 No.1 has entered appearance, there is no appearance for respondent No.1 and therefore, this Court did not have the advantage of the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.1. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. I have also perused the judgment passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in Spl. Case No.76/2015. 6. A perusal of the said judgment shows that respondent No.2 (PW.1) deposed that one Mr. Madhukar Shinghe had called the officers of the petitioner, namely, Mr.Pattanashetty and Mr.Gosavi and informed them about foul smell emanating from the canal. She claimed that thereafter all the accused went to her house and abused her for lodging the complaint. However, no steps were taken by the respondent No.2 before the Court to include any other person as an accused as provided under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. When the respondent No.2 was already before the Special Court as a complainant, she certainly could not have gone before the respondent No.1 and accuse the Investigating - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34503 WP No. 40425 of 2017 Officer of deliberately dropping certain persons from the charge sheet. Even otherwise, the respondent No.1 was not an authority to go into the question whether the Investigating Officer was right in dropping some of the accused mentioned in the complaint of the respondent No.2 from the charge sheet. This certainly was beyond the authority of the respondent No.1 and hence, the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 were colourable and the same are liable to be halted. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in Case No.ೌಜನ/361/2016 before the respondent No.1 are quashed. Consequently, it is declared that the respondent No.1 has no authority in law to entertain the complaint of the respondent No.2. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37