- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2075 CRL.P No. 104136 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104136 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI. UMESH S/O KASHINATH DHONGADI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: SHAPUR MATHATMA, PULE ROAD, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 001. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KAKATI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, 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, PIN CODE-590 006. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND OTHER PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 504 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(S) SC/ST P A ACT 2015 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BELGAUM SPECIAL CASE NO.230/2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.05 12:54:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2075 CRL.P No. 104136 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner-accused No.1 is charge sheeted for the offence punishable under section 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Amendment Act, 2015. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the respondent No.2-defacto complainant was granted with lease of the subject land for a period of 5 years, and a portion of the land was leased to the petitioner-accused No.1 herein and when the respondent asked the petitioner-accused No.1 to pay the arrears of rent, the petitioner-accused No.1 fully knowing that the respondent No.2 belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community, abused him with reference to his caste and threatened him with dire consequences. 3. Though served with notice, the respondent No.2 did not choose to appear in person or through his counsel. Therefore, placed exparte. 4. The alleged incident had taken place on 23.11.2021 and the FIR was lodged on 21.06.2022 without offering any plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. The alleged incident has not taken place in the public view so as to constitute an offence under Section 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2075 CRL.P No. 104136 of 2022 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Amendment Act, 2015. 5. However, the FIR was lodged after 8 months from the date of alleged incident and there was no plausible explanation offered by respondent No.2 for having lodged the FIR after 8 months from the date of alleged incident. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH –VS- M.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 at para 30 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.’’ 6. In the absence of explanation offered by the second respondent in lodging FIR, it is implied that the FIR lodged by the second respondent is with malice and ulterior motive so as to wreak vengeance against the petitioner-Accused. 7. In view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2075 CRL.P No. 104136 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 Sessions Court, Belgaum, insofar it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 28