IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102364 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI. MALLESHAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA HUDED (WRONGLY SHOWN AS MALLESH 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. Z.M. HATTARKI, SRI. A.M. MULLA AND SRI. M.D. SANADI, AND SRI. K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PERSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011, THROUGH MUNDGOD P.S., Digitally signed by ASHPAK DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581 349.

KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. KHATUNABI DHARWAD BENCH D 15 a : t 1 e 7 : : 2 0 0 9 2 + 5. 0 0 5 1 3 .1 0 3 W/O MEHABOOBSAAB BHARADVADA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: PEON, R/O: GANESH NAGAR, MUNDGOD TOWN, 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 P.S. CRIME NO.132/2024 FOR OFFENCE U/S 354A, 354D AND 506 OF IPC DATED 13.07.2024 ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUNDGOD UTTAR KANNADA, 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.132/2024 registered with Mundgod Police Station for offences punishable under Sections

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 25.03.2022 when she was employed as a Group-D employee, misbehaved with her and with sexual intent asked to obey him failing which he would relieve her from service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of more than two years 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 who had relieved her from service.

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 Group-D employee. The alleged incident occurred on 25.03.2022. However, the FIR was lodged only on 13.07.2024, after a delay of more than two years.

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 an afterthought to avenge her removal from service.

8. In light of the above, the delay in lodging the FIR, c