A complaint under the Atrocities Act filed after substantial delay lacks merit and may be quashed if it does not present a prima facie case.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners – accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 in Crl.P.No.1975/2023 and petitioner – accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.1978/2023 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.8/2023, pending before the 6^th Additional District and Sessions Court, Mysuru district, for the offences under Sections 504, 506, 143, 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 (2)(va), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel for Sri Manu P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, in both the petitions. Sri Arjun S., learned counsel for respondent No.2 has remained throughout absent.

3. This Court on 06.01.2026, had passed the following order:

“ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2024 IN BOTH MATTERS

The matter was called in the forenoon. There was no representation on behalf of the respondent-complainant who has filed an application seeking vacation of the interim order.

The matter was passed over and again called in the afternoon session. The 2nd respondent is not present. Therefore, the application I.A.No.1/2024 seeking vacation of the interim order stands rejected.

List this matter on 20.01.2026 for ‘admission’.

Interim order subsisting will continue till the disposal of the petitions.”

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant remained absent both in the forenoon and in the afternoon of 06.01.2026 and therefore, the matter was posted today, as a last chance. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the complainant. Therefore, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State are heard.

4. Facts adumbrated, are as follows:

The petitioners are the office bearers of the ITC Limited, Agri Business Division. The petitioners had engaged the services of one Tejashwini Enterprises, which is an independent contractor, who was engaged for the purpose of deployment of its employees to one of the Units of ITC Limited, which is Green Leaf Tobacco Threshing Unit at Thandya Industrial Area, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysuru District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the company’ for short). An agreement to that effect is entered into between the Company and Tejashwini Enterprises. The agreement stood expired on 23.07.2016 and Tejashwini Enterprises withdrew its employees including the complainant from the Company’s Unit. After the closure of the agreement between the parties, respondent No.2 is said to have staged a Dharana in front of the Company on the score that he was removed from service. It transpires that, later a fresh agreement was then entered into for the next term between the same parties.

5. After the agreement was entered into, two complaints come to be registered against respondent No.2 for assaulting one Vinoda B.G. and the employees of the Tejashwini Enterprises. The complaints then become crimes in Crime Nos.234/2016 and 241/2016 against respondent No.2, registered by the Company. Not stopping at that, the Company had to knock at the doors of the competent civil Court in O.S.No.588/2016 seeking an injunction against respondent No.2 not to enter the premises of the Company. The prayer seeking injunction was refused by the civil Court and the order of the concerned civil Court comes to be challenged before the appellate Court. In turn, the appellate Court grants injunction on 08.03.2017, in M.A.No.18/2016. Respondent No.2 then initiates proceedings before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mysuru, and the proceedings stood closed on an undertaking by responde