- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3154 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: HEMALATA MAHISHI AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, W/O NARAIN MAHISHI, RESIDING AT NO.209, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 055. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAMA R. IYER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SHESHADRIPURAM SUB-DIVISION, SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE STATION, SIR C.V. RAMAN ROAD, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 080. 2. D. SANNA DURGAPPA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA D AGED 53 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, (REMOVED FROM SERVICE) CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI. D. SANNA DURGAPPA, R-2 (PARTY-IN-PERSON) ) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SECTION 528 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN PCR 1/2025 ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDITIONAL CHIEF AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CC-71) AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 09.01.2025 AND THE ORDERS DATED 17.01.2025 TAKING COGNIZANCE IN PCR 1/2025 ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDITIONAL CHIEF AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CC- 71) AND ETC. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Call for records in PCR 1/2025 on the file of LXX Additional Chief and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CC-71) b) Quash the Complaint dated 09.01.2025 and the orders dated 17.01.2025 taking cognizance in PCR 1/2025 on the file of LXX Additional Chief and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CC-71) herein with annexed as Annexure 'B'. c) Quash the proceedings in Crime No.17/2025 arising out of PCR No.1/2025 on the file of LXX Additional Chief and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CC-71) produced as Document No. d) Quash FIR dated 27.01.2025 in Crime No. 17/2025 registered by the 1st Respondent herein with annexed as Annexure 'A'.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 – Sri.D.Sanna Durgappa / party-in-person and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 – de-facto complainant filed the instant complaint against the petitioner – accused No.13 and 17 others, which was registered as FIR in Crime No.17/2025 dated 27.01.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3(8), 3(14), 3(1)(2), 3(x) and 2(i) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. In this context, the impugned compliant in PCR No.1/2025 reads as under: “COMPLAINT SECTION 200 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE READ WITH SECTION That the complainant above named most respectfully submits as follows: 1. That the address of the parties for the purpose of service of Court Notices, Summons, Warrant, etc., is as given in the cause title is correct and sufficient. 2. That the compliant belongs to "Bhovi" by caste which classified under "Schedule Caste category and the copy, of the Caste Certificate issued by Revenue Department dated: 23.11.2011 is produced as DOCUMENT No.1. The complainant had done his Ph.D in Zoology and got appointed as a Lecturer 'on 10.07.2008 and the copy of appointment letter is produced DOCUMENT No.2. Later the complainant was promoted as Assistant Professor on 10.07.2011 in the Department Centre for Sustainable Technologies Indian 'Institute of Science, Bengaluru. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 copy of promotion order dated 04.10.2011 is produced as DOCUMENT No.3. 3. The complainant made a representation under SCSP and TSP funds after being denied a separate laboratory and sitting area after reporting for duty. The purpose of this grant is to support research projects and laboratory facilities for SC/ST academics. When I asked the director of the SCSP Funds Institute to fire me for the first time on August 11, 2014, for a fictitious financial matter is produced as DOCUMENT No. 4. The committee declared that the financial case was untrue and dismissed it. To exact revenge on me a second time, the director set up a honey trap for an outside student who had complained about a married woman. She accused that I' told her "beautiful" & filed a complaint with the Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee (SHCC). The term "beautiful" invites sexual harassment, and as sexual harassment is not tolerated, you have been fired. According to the Supreme Court of India's Vishaka Guidelines, this sexual harassment body has not carried out any investigations. According to Vishaka standards, there should be one NGO representative on the committee. However, since there no an NGO member in the committee, it is against the rules of service. The SHCC's primary responsibility is to gather facts; they have no authority to make recommendations. The IISc Council is able to suggest sanctions, The completed report is produced as DOCUMENT No. 5. 4. On September 18, 2017, complainant submitted to the Education Ministry in New Delhi (formerly MHRD), - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 However they gave me the wrong response rather than inquiring is produced as DOCUMENT No. 6. In order to harm my reputation and create a stigma. that would prevent complainant from getting, a job in the future, the director of the incident published complainant sexual harassment case in the daily news paper "Bangalore Mirror" and in "Hai Bangalore." The copy is produced as DOCUMENTS No. 7 and 8. 5. Complainant requested an investigation from the SC/ST Karnataka Legislative Assembly on August 19, 2017, and September 11, 2017. KLA's investigation revealed no sexual harassment, and the committee concluded that complainant was singled out because complainant belongs to the Dalit community. The KLA committee discovered that the investigation was not carried out in accordance with the Supreme Court's Vishaka Guidelines. After being found guilty, the director consented in front of the committee to allow complainant to return to the service, and copies is, produced as DOCUMENTS No. 9 from August 19, 2017, and September 11, 2017, are presented. Additionally, DOCUMENT Nos. 10 are the English versions dated August 19, 2017, and September 11, 2017. 6. On May 19, 2017, and October 9, 2020, I went to the director and filed my review petition to be reinstated in the service. A copy of the request letter dated May 19, 2017, and October 9, 2020 is produced as DOCUMENT No. 11. However, he has not reinstated; instead, he is threatening complainant with the police and the rioters. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 7. The Internal Committee Against Sexual Harassment (ICASH), established under the SH Act of 2013, comprised one Non-Governmental Organization in the case of Professor Giridhar Madras and Professor Parameshwar P Iyer. The committee was established in accordance with the Vishaka Guidelines. The RTI copy is dated 09.11.2020 which is provided as DOCUMENT 12,. However, no NGO members in the complainant committee. As a result, neither SHCC nor ICASH are authorized to carry out any kind of inquiry. The IISc director has not fired anyone but complainant despite the fact that there are almost thirty sexual harassment accusations against IISC Brahmin teachers. Rather, the director of IISc has granted all of these Brahmin faculty members, government benefits and promotions. The IISc RTI Copies dated July 16, 2018, and January 4, 2019 are produced as DOCUMENT Nos. 13 and 14. 8. After completing the Ph.D., the criminal lady Mrs. Abitha complaint departed the institute on August 4, 2018, and is currently living overseas. Along with the other students who participated in this heinous crime, this honorable court ought to revoke their Ph.D. degrees to earn a Ph.D., she committed this crime. Her Ph.D. degree copy is produced as DOCUMENT 15. 9. When complainant initially inquired regarding SCSP & TSP money (for office set' up) received from the Education Ministry and Center in New Delhi, IISc Director Govindan Rangarajan provided RTI with wrong information. Complainant brought this matter up with his minister of education, Dharmendra Pradhan, after providing numerous - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 wrong responses to RTI is produced as DOCUMENT No. 16, & atrocity case should be registered against him also. 10. We inquired about SCSP and TSP money obtained from the Education Ministry and Center in New Delhi for the second time in an RTI. Then he gave correct information to RTI, The IISc Institute was sanctioed Rs. 96,94:20,000 for SCSP (ninety-six crores. ninety-four lakhs, tiventy thousand rupees) between 2012 and 2016. The IISc Institute was sanctioned Rs. 48,28,35,000 for TSP (forty- eight crores, twenty-eight lakhs, thirty-five thousand rupees) between 2012 and 2016. The RTI copy dated August 16, 2018, is presented as DOCUMENT 17. IISc got a total of Rs.1,45,22,55,000 (one hundred forty five crores Twenty two lakhs fifty five thousand rupees) in SCSP and TSP over a four-year period. This money is only intended for SC/ST faculty research and lab setup, conferences, office supplies and computers, and other staff and faculty welfare initiatives. IISc receives SCSP and TSP funding from 1970 to 2024. About 2500 crores of SCSP and TSP monies were embezzled & looted by the IISC director. To this day, the director has not contributed a single paisa to research for SC/ST faculty at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. Director looted entire money from 1970 to 2024. Everyone, including the academics, is threatened by the director if they inquire about these money. His minister Dharmendra Pradhan, is not taking action against the IISc director since he is also receiving commissions in this SCSP and TSP When complainanat questioned the director about the misappropriation of these funds, the dismissed complainant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 from service. Due to the SCSP and TSP monies alone, the director is not hiring any additional SC/ST faculties. If he hires, he has to provide the money to the SC/ST faculty. For this reason, he hasn't hired any SC/ST faculty members at the institution for 120 years. He is using SCSP and TSP, looted money for prostitutes, then he takes the money and travels abroad to get massages & completely misused the funds. 11. Complainant complaint, was sent to the Sadashivnagar Police Commissioner, Home Minister DG, and IGP regarding the repeated atrocities committed by the IISc director on December 15, 2017, February 1, 2017, and December 4, 2020 which is documented as DOCUMENT No.18. 19, 20, & 21. Complainant had complained about honey trap case and the embezzlement of SCSP and TSP payments to the Certral Bureau of Investigation in Bangalore. They were booked by the IISc director & copy of the CBI email dated August 22, 2018 is produced as DOCUMENT No. 22. Complainant requested the Education Minister and the MHRD Secretary for permission to prosecute the IISc director, but complainant never received a sanction letter. Email dated 14.08,2019, 23.12.2023, 14.09.2024 and 28.10.2024 is produced as DOCUMENT No. 23. However, on December 28, 2023, Shri Dharmendra Pradhan, the Education Minister New Delhi, responded to complainant email without providing a Ietter of sanction. The email copy is produced as DOCUMENT No.24, 25 & 26, & Reply from the Minister Dharmendra Pradhan DOCUMENT No.27. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 12. The IlSc Director promoted everyone who helped him with Complainant honey trap and made 24 retired Brahmin professors as honorary professors for another five years, including hardcore criminal Anurag Kumar and the ECE department. Venktaraman P. ECE dept Mrs. Sandya Vishweshwaraih. These honorary professors visit the institute 'after they retire, drink in the office in the day time, harass a few girls there, go to bed, and leave. However, the director of IISc is not appointing SC/ST young faculties instead of retired Brahmin professors the copy of the RTI is produced as DOCUMENT No. 28. These entire Brahmins faculty eating Dalit money daily in the institute. 13. The complainant argues that prejudice and the institute's attitude toward untouchables are demonstrated by the first accused's act of incorporating the condition that he would not be permitted to seek new job there. The complaint argues that the accused is treating him unfairly just because complainant is a member of the disadvantaged class. According to the complaint, complainant works really hard and gained notoriety in a number of nations during his brief time at the IISc. The accused, who were continually protesting that the shouldn't permit a professor from the schedule caste to gain rapid fame, could not stand it. The complainant's aspiration of becoming a successful scientist in his area was crushed by the accused as a whole. 14. The complainant argues that on October 25, 2011, IISc., through the SC/ST Faculty, and officers Association, had complained to the first accused, about caste discrimination at the institute. The complainant would - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 further contend that on September 1, 2006, a news article describing IISc.'s violation of SC/ST reservation and discrimination was published. The article was titled "Iyengar lyer Institute of Science." copy of the Dalit Voice,, released on September 1, 2006. Ir 2016 atrocity case registered against 29 faculty members in the IISc including director. 15. The complainant brought a report about caste discrimination, harassment, and atrocities to the attention of the Commissioner of Police, but the Deputy Commissioner of Police did nothing about it. The state government of Karnataka and Kannada Development Authority Chairman also did not conducted any investigation into the repeated harassment by the IISc director and faculty members, even after they were removed from service. On May 5, 2017, the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Vidhana Soudha Bangalore's SC/ST welfare committee conducted an investigation and concluded that there had been no instances of sexual harassment. In light of this, Sri Jayprakash, the Assistant Registrar who attended the meeting behalf of IISc director, agreed that the complainant would be reinstated to service with attendant benefits and promotions, following receipt of the "Review petition" from the complainant's letters dated August 19, 2017, September 11, 2017, and October 6 2017. 16. IISc Advocates M. Pradeep S. Sawkar and Abhilash Raju used to threaten the complainant to quit the institute and resign when the complaint service matter was in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. These advocates did not allow to case end on merit basis. Hence complainant had - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 submitted complaint to Bar council to cancel their license including complainant advocate, Mr Victor Manoharan who booked by opposite advocate and cheated complainant. Court should cancel their license immediately. Mr. Pradeep S. Sawkar and Abhilash Raju are main persons booking the judges in the court. If the complainant didn't we would call that woman again and file a criminal prosecution against her. This led to the creation of a joint document. Both advocates misled the complaint as a result, The plaintiff learned about their scheme after reading the joint memo, and they ruined all of his constitutionally guaranteed rights, created stigma attachment, and ruined his future. Now, if the complainant files new complaints against IISc administration, they threaten to initiate a criminal action against complainant. The member and chairman of the governing council also threatened the complaint, set up a honey trap, and dismissed charge him from office without filing a charge sheet. 17. The complainant filed a complaint and received a response from the Hon. Chairman of the Loka Sabha's SC/ST Welfare Committee in New Delhi regarding the harassment and atrocities committed by the IISc director and faculty on August 22, 2017. Το avoid being questioned by the SC/ST Parliamentary committee, the IISc director provided incorrect information. The copy is attached DOCUMENT 29. 18. The institute of IISc is a scam, and all of its former directors are thieves. Prof. Balaram, the former director, used to come by the Maruthi 800 car to show that he was honest, and not a thief, but he took all of the IISc - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 funds of SC/ST in his car dicky and ran away. In the same way the previous director Anurag Kumar he is noted as Hardcore criminal also looted SC/ST funds and informed to ministry well in advance. Everybody is behind the money only, nobody behind the research in IISc. 19. All Dalit professors and personnel are under threat from the IISc director. Director calls to DBT, DST, and other funding organizations and cancels research funding and threatens to charge them with plagiarism against Dalits. Education ministry's incorrect response demonstrates that it is supporting atrocities & terrorism against defenseless Dalits at IISc. It is now abundantly evident that the ministry is engaging in acts of atrocities against Dalit faculty and personnel. 20. There are many sexual harassment cases registered against IISc professors like Prof. Sathish Raghavan, Biochemistry and CAF department, Prof. Kumarvelu, Microbiology, Dean Prof. Anil Kumar, and other 30 facuIties but none of them dismissed. This clearly shows they targeted Dalits only. Director threatened complainant that, he paid fifty lakhs rupees per case for to get one judgment and also said he paid fifty lakhs rupees to get one stay order. Likewise he paid eight times in the court to win the case. Director and Dean Anil kumar and Mr. Venkatramreddy, Chanakya, Mr. Dasappa, Mrs. Sandhya Visweswaraih came & threatened complainant about booking in the court & said we booked all your cases, don't fight with us in the court. High court given more than 15 stay order for IISc Director but Dalits will not get single stay from high - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 court; this is highly discriminative toward Dalits. Dalits rights this are systemically suppressed by high court itself. They are threatening through the courts, now days it is booking in the court is the big scam. Cases which are not ending on the merit of the case is nothing but a booking, court should bring this guidelines to avoid booking the judges in the court. 21. In accordance with the earlier reference case number 217/2016, kindly file this lawsuit against the IISc director. Case was registered against Prof. Anurag Kumar, the director of the IISc and other faculty members Writ Petition No. 217/2016 without any previous sanction for prosecution by Education Ministry's. In this instance, the honorable court does not need sanction for prosecution letter from Education ministry New Delhi. Hence Sanction for the prosecution from Ministry or Secretary is not required to register complaint against IISc faculty and staff members, the copy is enclosed DOCUMENT No 30. 22. The Karnataka legislative Assembly asked for complainant reinstatement in the service, but the director has not done so as of now, has persisted his abuses against the complainant, and has left complainant jobless for ten years. In order to perpetuate lifelong horrors, the added stigma to complainant profession, and as a result, the complaint will never be able to find employment. Complainant submitted approximately 5,000 complaints but no one enquired in India. Thus Director booked all agencies in India. Director booked all by using SC/ST funds. He booked to Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the State SC/ST Commission, the National Commission of Scheduled Castes, New Delhi, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 the SC/ST Parliamentary Committee, the Police Department, the Judiciary, My Advocate, and other organizations; He booked all Indian agencies using SC/ST funds. Complainant complained to the, Prime minister of India, Education minister New Delhi, and President of India on more than fifteen times, and each time they provided wrong information rather than enquiring the IISc director. They forced me to endure over nine years of unemployment. The director notifies everyone where I apply for a job and interferes with my employment search. He attached STIGMA attachment in my career & complainant not getting any job. In other nations and around the world, I have not encountered this type of government. 23. As he agreed in the KLA committee, the director should reinstate right away. Director given all the terminal benefits Prof. Giridhar Madras even though he was fired from IISc council. The copy is enclosed as DOCUMENT 31. He should be taken into custody right away and imprisoned if he carries out the same crimes again and again. 24. The complainant submits that all the above facts and incidences narrated would clearly attract the provisions of section 3 (1) (ii) which is an act causing insult, (viii) institute false, malicious or vexatious suit (Doctored Invitation Letter and Sexual Harassment Case false evidence by IISc director reply for review petition on 07.07.2017 etc), (i) giving any false or frivolous information (informing the institutes wherever the complainant applied for job of sexual harassment and not resignation from service), (x) Intentionally insult or intimidate with intention to humiliate - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 (calling him by caste in the meetings and infront of other faculty and students) 2 (1) (ii) giving or fabricating false evidence (evidences in the sexual harassment case etc and false evidence by IISc director reply for review petition on 07.07.2017 etc). 25. 25. Complainant will submit all relevant evidences and proofs The complainant submits that with all the whenever court asks humiliation, and assault on his caste he continued to serve the institute keeping in mind the future of the students. This the accused took as undue advantage thinking that whatever they say would the complainant would only suffer and would not raise his voice. The complainant submits that if appropriate action is not taken in this regard great hardship would be resulted and further would result in total miscarriage of justice, hence this petition. 26. That the Incidence had taken place in the Indian Institute of Science, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, which comes within Sadashivnagar Police Station Limits, Bengaluru, hence is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. 27. That the complainant submits that the above complaint filed is within time. That the complainant has not filed any other complaint on the same cause of action or any such complaint is pending before any of the Court to the best knowledge of the complainant. PRAYER Wherefore, the complainant most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 (a) Direct the concerned police officer to investigate the offences committee by the accused under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (b) Take cognizance of the offence committed by the accused i.e., punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xiv), 2(i) and (ii) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the accused and take action as contemplated under law, provide compensation, in the interest of justice.” 4. In pursuance of the same, the Trial Court directed investigation vide order dated 17.01.2025 in PCR No.1/2025, pursuant to which FIR was filed, which reads as under: “ªÀiÁ£Àå 71£Éà ¹.¹.ºÉZï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¦.¹.Dgï.£ÀA.01/2025 C£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ¦.¹.14237 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀAzÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ, qÁ.|| ¸ÀtÚ zÀÄUÀð¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ Astra Dept (CST) ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ (¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ ªÀeÁªÁVzÀÄÝ), zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ 2014gÀ ¸Á°£À°è ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è £ÀPÀ° ºÀ¤ mÁæ¥ï ªÀiÁr¹, ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁzÀ ¥ÉÆæÃ.UÉÆëAzÀ£ï gÀAUÀ£Ád£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÆæÃ.²æà ²æÃzsÀgï ªÁjAiÀÄgï, ²æà ¸ÉãÀ¥Àw Qæ¸ï UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚ£ï, ²æà C¤¯ï PÀĪÀiÁgï ¨sËvÀ±Á¸ÀÛç ²æêÀÄw ¢Ã¦êPÁ ZÀPÀæªÀwð, ²æêÀÄw £ÀªÀÄævÁ, qÁ.¤ªÀÄð¯Á, ²æêÀÄw ¸ÀAzÁå, ²æà PÉ.«.J¸ï.ºÀj, ²æà zÁ¸À¥Àà, ²æà ¦. ¨Á®ZÀAzÀgÀ, §®gÁªÀiï ¦., CAd° J. PÀgÀAqÉ, ²æêÀÄw ºÉêÀÄ®vÁ «Äí¶, ²æà ZÀmÉÆÖÃ¥ÁzÁåAiÀÄ, PÉ. ²æà ¥Àæ¢Ã¥ï J¸ï., C©ü¯Áµï gÁdÄ ¸ÀÄAzÀgÀ¸Áé«Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁªÀĸÁé«Ä, «PÀÖgï ªÀÄ£ÉÆúÀgÀ£ï, EªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj £À£ÀUÉ - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 2008 jAzÀ 2025 gÀªÀgÉUÀÆ eÁw ¤AzÀ£É¬ÄAzÀ zËdð£Àå £ÀqɸÀÄvÀÛ §A¢zÁÝgÉ. FUÁUÀ¯Éà PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÃf¸ÉÖnªï C¹A©è¬ÄAzÀ vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀtÚ zÀÄUÀð¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ºÀ¤ mÁæ¥ï ªÀiÁr ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁ UÉƽ¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀ°vÀ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÝjAzÀ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ L.L.J¸ï. ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀÄ® ¸À«ÄÃw ¸ÀĦæÃA PÉÆÃmïð DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ F ¸À«ÄwUÉ M§âgÀÄ J£ï.f.M. ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, F ¸À«ÄwUÉ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ PÉ.J¯ï.J. vÀ¤PÉAiÀÄ°è PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ ¸ÀtÚ zÀÄUÀð¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃj¹PÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ°è ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ EzÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆAr®è. zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ PÀ¼ÀAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀȶֹzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄÄAzÉ F zÉñÀzÀ°è J°èAiÀÄÆ £À£ÀUÉ PÉ®¸À ¹UÀzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è £ÁåAiÀÄ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ gËrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. FUÀ¯Éà D ªÀÄ»¼É ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝgÉ, DzÀgÀÆ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆAr®è. EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀzɺÀ°AiÀÄ ²PÀët ¸ÀaªÀjUÉ E-ªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ vÀ¥ÀÄà GvÀÛgÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. L.L.J¸ï.¹ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è E°èªÀgÉUÀÆ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 30 ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. L.L.J¸ï.¹ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è SCSP ªÀÄvÀÄÛ TSP (SC & ST Funds) ¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2500 PÉÆÃn ®Æn ºÉÆr¢zÁÝgÉ. L.L.J¸ï.¹ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃnð£À°è 15 ¨Áj vÀqÉ DeÉÕ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ dqÀÓUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §ÄPï ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÉøï UÉ®ÄèvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£Àå 71£Éà ¹.¹.ºÉZï. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¦.¹.Dgï £ÀA.01/2025£À°è ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄîÌAqÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆlÖ zÀÆgÀÄ EvÁå¢.” - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¦¹Dgï £ÀA 01/2025 PÀ®A 2(I) and 2(ii) PÀ®AUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Éưøï Ln vÀAvÁæA±ÀzÀ°è E®èzÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj PÀ®AUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊ §gÀºÀzÀ°è ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀvÀðªÀiÁ£À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.” 5. A perusal of the private complaint in PCR and FIR will indicate that insofar as the petitioner – accused No.13 is concerned, there are no allegations so as to incriminate her for the alleged offences. Further, except stating that she was part of the Committee, which held enquiry against respondent No.2 and signed the recommendation for dismissing of respondent No.2 there are no other allegations indicating commission of the alleged offences insofar as petitioner – accused No.13 is concerned. In other words, insofar as petitioner – accused No.13 is concerned, the commission of the alleged offences are not forthcoming and not disclosed in the impugned complaint and in the FIR. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner is not an employee or officer of the IISC and she is only an external member of the Committee, which conducted an enquiry of the cases under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 against respondent No.2 and consequently, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order only insofar - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26512 WP No. 3154 of 2025 as petitioner – accused No.13 is concerned deserves to be quashed. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Complaint dated 09.01.2025 and the order dated 17.01.2025 passed in PCR No.1/2025 by the LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71), and the proceedings in Crime No.17/2025 arising out of PCR No.1/2025 only insofar as petitioner – accused No.13 is concerned are hereby quashed. (iii) It is hereby made clear that the present order is restricted / limited only to petitioner – accused No.13 and will not be made applicable and shall not apply insofar the remaining accused persons are concerned. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 5 Sl No.: 19