Karnataka High Court
Jagadish S/O Hanamant Bilagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829
CRL.P No. 100022 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100022 OF 2020 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. JAGADISH S/O. HANAMANT BILAGI
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
2. SADASHIV S/O. GUNDAPPA YARAGATTI
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
BOTH ARE R/O. INAM-HANCHANAL,
TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(BY ITS BILAGI P.S.),
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
2. KASTURI GANIGER D/O. CHANNAPPA GANIGER,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. INAM-HANCHANAL,
TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR ...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1;
SHELAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.06.24 10:07:39
+0530
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE
COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.7/2019 (CR.NO.161/2018) REGISTERED IN
BILAGI P.S.) PRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BILAGI IN C.C.NO.7/2019 DATED 16/04/2019 TAKING COGNIZANCE
OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE AND THE ORDER OF ISSUING PROCESS
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 448,
354(B), 504, 506 R/W 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829
CRL.P No. 100022 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
This Criminal Petition is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3
in Crime No.161/2018, which was later registered as
C.C.No.7/2019, on the file of the learned Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Bilagi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, the complaint was lodged by Smt.Kasturi Ganiger,
on 16.05.2018, at about 7.45 pm in the evening, alleging
that, on the previous day i.e., on 15.05.2018 at about
3.45 pm in the afternoon, one Ramesh Madar along with
petitioners herein, who were part of the victory
procession, celebrating the victory of BJP candidate in the
assembly elections, started shouting against the
complainant and her family members on the pretext that
they belong to congress party.
3. It is stated in the complaint that, the accused
persons along with few other persons entered the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829
HC-KAR
premises and started abusing the complainant. When the
complainant retaliated, accused No.1 hit her with a
wooden log on the backside of the complainant. It is
stated that, accused No.2 pulled the complainant by her
nightie and he hit her with his hands. Similar allegations
have been made against accused No.3. It is stated that,
few other persons intervened and scolded the accused
persons, and they left the place. It is only on the next
day, it is stated, that the complainant went to the
government hospital for medical assistance, and
thereafter, the complaint was lodged. Learned counsel
therefore submits that, it is clear from the statements
made in the complaint that there is delay of more than 24
hours in lodging the complaint.
4. complainant has concealed the fact that, on the
previous day, i.e., on 15.05.2018, accused No.1,
Sri.Ramesh Madar, had lodged a complaint with the police
against the complainant's brother Maliyappa and two
others, who all belong to the Ganiger caste. It was stated
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829
HC-KAR
in the complaint filed by Ramesh Madar that, while they
were celebrating the victory of a BJP candidate, Maliyappa
and others, who belong to the Congress Party, got
agitated and they used abusive language against the
complainant and others, and thereafter assaulted the
complainant and others who belong to the BJP party.
Learned counsel submits that, as an afterthought,
Maliyappa got the complaint registered at the hands of his
sister as a counterblast, when the accused persons never
entered the premises of the complainant. Moreover, it is
pointed out that, in the original complaint, it is stated that
the accused persons entered the house of the
complainant, and a different version is given subsequently
retracting the earlier statement, while stating that the
incident took place within the compound premises and not
in the house.
5. Learned counsel would submit that, the reason
is not too far to fetch, since the witnesses, according to
the complainant, are her mother and sister-in-law.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829
HC-KAR
Naturally, they are interested witnesses, and therefore, to
get over the same, the scene is shifted to within the
compound so that the support of few other witnesses
could be drawn in.
6. Moreover, it is submitted that, at the behest of
the elders, the complainant Sri.Ramesh Madar turned
hostile in the criminal case, but without admitting the
same, the case registered by Ramesh Madar was
dismissed and the accused persons were acquitted of the
charges brought against them. Learned counsel would
also submit that, notice is served on respondent No.2 -
complainant and respondent No.2 is not represented.
7. Learned counsel would also draws the attention
of this Court to the wound certificate, where abrasions are
said to be found on the knee of the complainant. Only
tenderness was said to be present at the L4-L5 of the
spine region, which clearly destroys the allegations made
by the complainant that she was assaulted with a wooden
log on her back. Learned counsel would therefore submit
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829
HC-KAR
that, it is a clear case of counterblast and based on the
political rivalry between the parties.
8. Learned AGA would however submit that, the
case of the complainant is that, the incident took place
within the premises of her house and the other incident,
for which the complaint was lodged by Ramesh Madar,
took place in a different place and not in the same
premises. Even if it is true that, such altercations took
place between Ramesh Madar, Maliyappa and others on
the streets, that in any way would not give reason for the
accused persons herein to enter the premises of the
complainant.
9. Learned AGA would submit that, the complaint
lodged by Smt.Kasturi Ganiger cannot be considered as a
counterblast, since the complainant had nothing to do with
the other incident and she was inside the house. It is her
case that the accused persons entered the premises of
the complainant and assaulted her and the complaint has
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829
HC-KAR
been lodged. The case has to be considered weighing the
evidence that could be brought on record.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned AGA, on perusal of the petition
papers, this Court finds that the criminal case in Special
Case No.110/2018 was tried before the learned Second
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, having regard
to the fact that provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, were involved in the said case. It is
also clear from a plain reading of the judgment dated
10.05.2012 passed in Special Case No.110/2018, that
the complainant therein, i.e., accused No.1 herein,
Ramesh Madar, deposed that about 3 years back, some
oral altercations took place between himself and the
accused in respect of Panchayat elections, and in that
regard his signature was obtained by the police on
Ex.P1-complaint, but he does not know its contents. The
complainant therein stated that he does not know as to
why his signature was obtained by the police on Ex.P2 and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829
HC-KAR
as to why his signature was taken at that point of time. He
deposed that accused have never abused him by taking
the name of his caste nor they assaulted. In that view of
the matter, complainant/P.W.1 was treated as hostile and
the learned Public Prosecutor cross-examined P.W.1. The
special case ended in acquittal of the accused persons, one
of them is the brother of the complainant herein. It is also
noticeable that the complainant has remained
unrepresented though served with a notice sent by this
court.
11. In this background, when the complaint lodged
by Smt.Kasturi Ganiger, more that 24 hours after the
incident, it can definitely lead to a suspicion about the
motive of the complainant. If the complainant was
seriously injured, her mother and sister-in-law who were
present at the spot would have taken her to the hospital
immediately. However, as borne out from the records, it is
the specific case that the complainant went to the District
Hospital 24 hours after the incident. It is only thereafter
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829
HC-KAR
the complaint was lodged with the police. In the
background of the admitted facts that accused No.1 herein
Ramesh Madar having lodged the complaint against
Maliyappa, the brother of the complainant herein on
15.05.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s)
and 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and the complainant
herein lodging a complaint a day after the said incident, it
would definitely give rise to a suspicion regarding motive
of the complainant in lodging the complaint 24 hours after
the incident alleged herein.
12. Having regard to the totality of the facts
narrated hereinabove, this court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution of the petitioners herein as
accused Nos.2 and 3 should not be permitted to proceed
further. It is also noticeable that in the complaint what is
stated against accused No.2 is that he abused, outraged
the modesty of the complainant by pulling her nightie and
beat her with his hands. Insofar as accused No.3 is
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7829
HC-KAR
concerned, the same allegation is made. Having regard to
the wound certificate, it is also clear that the statement
made in the complaint do not found support in the wound
certificate. In that view of the matter, this court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The complaint in C.C.No.7/2019 (crime
No.161/2018 registered in Bilagi Police Station)
on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Bilagi insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are
concerned, stands quashed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
gab - upto para 11
MBS - para 12 to end
CT:VP
