- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1206 CRL.P No. 102884 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102884 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NEELAKANTAIAH S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAIAH AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARAKABHAVI VILLAGE, TAL. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI-583135. 2. SRI. VINAYKUMAR S/O. NEELAKANTAIAH AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O HARAKABHAVI VILLAGE, TAL. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI-583135. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION, HOSAHALLI, NOW REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011. 2. SRI. DURUGAPPA U S/O. OBAYYA AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARAKABHAVI VILLAGE, TAL. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI-583135. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. CASE NO. 400/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 324, 504 AND 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.25 11:20:48 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1206 CRL.P No. 102884 of 2022 IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) AND 3(2)(5a) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, ORDER SHEET MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER A memo has been filed reporting the death of petitioner No.1. 2. The petition, insofar as it relates to accused No.1, is dismissed as abated. 3. Petitioner No.2 – accused No.2, is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the subject land was granted to the maternal grandfather of the complainant. During his lifetime, he sold the land to Poojari Chikkappa in 1962, who, in turn, conveyed the land to Bangaramma and others. In 1983, Smt. Bangaramma and others conveyed the subject land to accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 conveyed the subject land to five persons on 9.11.2020. Given these circumstances, when the complainant went to the subject land, the accused allegedly threatened him with dire consequences and abused him with reference to his caste. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1206 CRL.P No. 102884 of 2022 5. The respondent No.2 – complainant, although served with notice, has not chosen to appear in person or through his counsel, and has been placed ex parte. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent – State. 7. The alleged incident of abuse and threats with reference to caste is said to have taken place on 7.2.2021. As of that date, accused Nos.1 and 2 were not the owners of the subject land. The FIR was lodged on 28.3.2021, with no plausible explanation for the delay. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582, has 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 the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident, or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.” 9. A perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that, as of the date of the incident, there were no eyewitnesses. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1206 CRL.P No. 102884 of 2022 incident occurred on agricultural land, not within public view, and on 6.2.2021, others arrived at the spot after the incident to rescue the complainant. Therefore, in the absence of any material to substantiate that the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 abused the complainant with reference to his caste in a public setting, the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not applicable. 10. The allegation against accused Nos.1 and 2 for abusing the respondent No.2 is vague, with no specific overt act mentioned against each petitioner – accused Nos.1 and 2 regarding how and in what manner they allegedly abused the complainant with reference to his caste. The only assertion is that both accused abused the complainant in this regard. Furthermore, as of the date of the incident, the accused were not the owners of the subject land, which had been conveyed to a third party, as evidenced by the sale deed produced along with the charge sheet. Therefore, the allegation made in the FIR appears to be driven by a desire for revenge against the accused Nos.1 and 2 due to the conveyance of the land to a third party. 11. Given these facts, the continuation of criminal proceedings against accused Nos.1 and 2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition stands allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1206 CRL.P No. 102884 of 2022 ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl. Case No.400/2021 pending on the file of the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, insofar as it relates to the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41