- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3834 CRL.P No. 103707 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103707 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SHRI. TANVEER S/O. LAYAKALI PATIL AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. 3 CROSS, SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAKATI POLICE STATION, BELAGAUM, R/BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD. 2. SHRI. SANJAY S/O. PARASHURAM NAIK AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. MANNUR MOTIBA GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND OTHER PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(S) OF SC/ST PA ACT 1989 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BELGAUM IN SPECIAL CASE NO.230/2022. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3834 CRL.P No. 103707 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner‑accused No.2 has been charge‑sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Amendment Act, 2015. 2. The prosecution’s case is that respondent No.2, the de facto complainant, was granted a lease of the subject land for a period of five years, and a portion of the land was subsequently leased to the petitioner‑accused No.2. When respondent No.2 requested that the petitioner‑accused pay the arrears of rent, the latter fully aware that respondent No.2 belonged to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community abused him on account of his caste and threatened him with dire consequences. 3. Although served with notice, respondent No.2 did not choose to appear in person or through counsel. Therefore, is placed ex parte. 4. The alleged incident took place on 23 November 2021, and the FIR was lodged on 21 June 2022 without any plausible explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the alleged incident did not occur in public view, which is necessary to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Amendment Act, 2015. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3834 CRL.P No. 103707 of 2022 5. However, the FIR was lodged eight months after the alleged incident, and respondent No.2 offered no plausible explanation for this delay. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 at para 30, held as follows: “30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only loses the advantage of spontaneity but also risks becoming a coloured version an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story arising from deliberations and consultations thus casting serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that any delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.” 6. In the absence of any explanation from respondent No.2 for the delay, it may be inferred that the FIR was lodged with malice and an ulterior motive aimed at exacting vengeance against the petitioner‑accused. The dispute between the parties is in relation to the alleged non payment of arrears of rent by the Petitioner, which has been given a criminal texture. 7. In view of the foregoing analysis, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner‑accused would constitute an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3834 CRL.P No. 103707 of 2022 ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings in Spl.Case No.230/2022 pending on the file of III Additional District and Session Court, Belgaum, insofar it relates to the petitioner/accused No.2 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84