Sri. Suresh Venkappa Yaraddi vs The State Of Karnataka

-1- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2696 CRL.P No. 100729 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100729 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI. SURESH VENKAPPA YARADDI, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. NWKRTC BAILHONGAL DEPOT, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BAILHONGAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT PREMISES, DHARWAD.

2. SRI. RAJU BASAVANNI PONNYAGOL, Digitally signed by B AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. MECHANIC, K MAHENDRAKUMAR R/O. GANDI NAGAR, 3 CROSS, BK Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF KARNATAKA DEEPAK GALLI, DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.14 13:19:59 +0530 BELAGAVI-590001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 SRI. MAHANTESH S.HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2020 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN SPL.CASE NO.139/2020 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 3 (1)(r) OF SC/ST PA ACT 1989, REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.206/2019 OF BAILHONGAL P.S. AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION. -2- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2696 CRL.P No. 100729 of 2022

THIS PETITION, 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 has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the SC/ST Act').

2. The prosecution alleges that on 17.10.2015, when senior officers of the KSRTC Department visited the KSRTC Depot, Bailhongal, to inquire about issues faced by KSRTC, the accused, fully aware that the de facto complainant belonged to the SC/ST community, referred to him as a "psycho" and of unsound mind.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. The alleged incident took place on 17.10.2015, but the FIR was lodged only on 14.10.2019, after a delay of four years, without any plausible explanation.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao [(2008) 15 SCC 582] has observed:

"The object and importance of prompt lodging of the FIR have been highlighted time and again. Delay in lodging the FIR, more -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2696 CRL.P No. 100729 of 2022

often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which are products of afterthought. A delayed report not only loses the advantage of spontaneity but also risks introducing a colored version, an exaggerated account, or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, casting serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that any delay in lodging the report be satisfactorily explained."

6. The de facto complainant alleges that the incident was recorded on the mobile phone of one Subhash Rudrapur, but the phone was misplaced and the recording destroyed. The statement of C.W.16, an alleged eyewitness, was recorded, where he reiterated the allegations against the petitioner. However, even assuming the allegations to be true, they do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

7. Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act states that:

"Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punishable under this provision."

8. In the present case, the alleged insult was not related to the complainant's caste. The essential elements constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act are conspicuously absent. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

-4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2696 CRL.P No. 100729 of 2022

ORDER

i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

ii) The criminal proceedings in Spl. Case No.139/2020 No.552/2023 pending on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused, is hereby quashed.

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed off accordingly.

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66