- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:153 CRL.P No. 102367 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102367 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. MALLESHAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA HUDED, (WRONGLY SHOWN AS MALLESHEPPA M. HUDED), AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: I/C PRINCIPAL OF GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, R/O: SALAGON GOVT. POLYTECHNIC MUNDGOD, TQ: MUNDGOD, DIST: UTTAR KANNDA-581 349. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.D. SANADI, SRI. Z.M. HATTARKI AND SRI. A.M. MULLA, AND SRI. K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011, THROUGH MUNDGOD PS., DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581 349. 2. SHRIMATI W/O RAMESH REVANAKAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: PEON, R/O: GOTAGODIKOPPA, MUNDGOD, TQ: MUNDGOD, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581 349. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VADIRAJ P. VADAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS, (482 OF CR.P.C.), PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN MUNDGOD PS CRIME NO.131/2024 FOR OFFENCE U/S 341, 354A, 354D AND 506 OF IPC DATED 13.07.2024 ON THE FILE OF PRL. Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.13 15:17:10 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:153 CRL.P No. 102367 of 2024 CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C., MUNDGOD UTTAR KANNADA, AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused challenges the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No. 131/2024 registered with Mundgod Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354A, 354D, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The second respondent lodged the FIR alleging that the petitioner, serving as the In-charge Principal of the Government Polytechnic College, summoned her to his chambers on 27.01.2024 when she was employed as a Sweeper, wrongfully restrained her, pulled her saree, and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of six months from the date of the alleged incident without any plausible explanation. He argued that the FIR was filed as an afterthought, with malafide intent, and solely to wreak vengeance against the petitioner after she was relieved from service for unauthorized absence. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:153 CRL.P No. 102367 of 2024 4. Conversely, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 (de facto complainant) submitted that the petitioner is allegedly habitual in harassing female employees, and several complaints have been filed against him. They also submitted that a show-cause notice has been issued for initiating a departmental inquiry against him. Considering the cognizable nature of the offence, they argued that the allegations need to be investigated and that the registration of the FIR does not warrant interference by this Court at this stage. 5. The submissions of both sides have been duly considered. 6. It is undisputed that the petitioner is serving as the In- charge Principal of the Government Polytechnic College and that the second respondent was employed as a Sweeper. The alleged incident occurred on 27.01.2024, and the second respondent was relieved from service on 02.03.2024. However, the FIR was lodged only on 13.07.2024, after a delay of more than six months. 7. The second respondent’s sole explanation for the delay is that she discussed the matter with her family members before deciding to lodge the complaint. Beyond this, there is no other plausible explanation provided for the significant delay in filing the FIR. Such an unexplained and inordinate delay raises serious doubts about the genuineness of the allegations and lends credence to the petitioner’s argument that the FIR was lodged as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:153 CRL.P No. 102367 of 2024 an afterthought to avenge her removal from service for unauthorized absence. 8. In light of the above, the delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the lack of plausible explanation, suggests that the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner may amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. 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 gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, 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 a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.” In view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of investigation against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of law. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:153 CRL.P No. 102367 of 2024 ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.0131/2024 registered by the Mundgod Police Station, Sirsi Sub-Division, Uttara Kannada, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53