ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner has challenged the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2014, and Sections 127(2), 137(2), 3(5), 352, and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

2. The second respondent lodged an FIR stating that on

13.11.2024, at about 6:00 p.m., while he and his family members were in their house, a blast was carried out by persons associated with Shreya Stone Crushers, causing stones to fall on the rooftop and inside the house. On the same day, he lodged an FIR seeking action against Shreya Stone Crushers for failing to conduct the blasting operation with adequate safety measures. The complaint was registered as Crime No.165/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 125 and 288 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

3. It is further alleged that on 16.11.2024, at about 3:00 p.m., while the complainant was at home, two persons, namely, Basavaraj, son of Sharanappa Uppar, and Sharanappa, son of Ninganagouda Sannagoudra, forcibly took him on a motorcycle and wrongfully confined him at the Shreya Stone Crusher unit. During this confinement, the complainant was allegedly abused in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences for filing the earlier complaint against the stone crusher’s owner. The complainant further alleged that the petitioners instigated the accused to abduct and confine him. He claimed that he subsequently called his son on his mobile phone, after which his wife, along with police personnel, arrived at the scene and rescued him at approximately 4:00 p.m.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the complainant himself has stated that he was rescued by the police, there was an obligation on the part of the police to record the incident in the Station House Diary, which would establish that he was indeed rescued by the police personnel. He further submits that except for the oral allegations of the complainant, there is no substantive evidence to establish that, at the instance of the petitioners, the other two accused abducted and wrongfully confined the complainant at the stone crusher unit. The learned counsel, therefore, contends that the FIR has been lodged with mala fide intent and as an act of vengeance.

5. Despite service of notice, the second respondent has not chosen to appear in person or through counsel and is, therefore, placed ex parte.

6. The learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1/State, submits that the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, and hence, the veracity of the allegations must be examined during the investigation rather than at this stage. He, therefore, seeks the dismissal of the petition.

7. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

8. The allegation against the petitioners is that accused Nos.1 and 2, at their instigation, abducted and wrongfully confined the complainant at the Shreya Stone Crusher unit at approximately 3:00 p.m. on 16.11.2024. During the alleged wrongful confinement, accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to have abused the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences for filing a complaint against petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5, who are allegedly the owners of the stone crusher unit.

9. The complainant claims that he called his son on his mobile phone, narrated the incident, and that his wife, along with police personnel, arrived at the spot and rescued him. If, as stated, the complainant was rescued by the police, there ought to have been a corresponding entry in the Station House Diary, particularly because abduction and wrongful confinement are cognizable offences.

10. Additionally, it is highly improbable that while being wrongfully confined, the complainant was able to call his son on his mobile phone to narrate the incident. Furthermore, a perusal of the complaint reveals