THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN C.C.NO.802/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354A, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND ACCEPT THE B REPORT FILED BY THE POLICE AS PER ANNEXURE-C.

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner being the accused in C.C.No.802/2017 pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madikeri, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him and to accept the B report filed by the police produced as per Annexure-C.

Heard Sri T.I. Abdulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

Respondent No.2 filed the first information with Madikeri Town Police Station, against the petitioner and the Registrar of Karnataka Kodava Sahitya Academy, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

It is alleged that the informant / respondent No.2 was working as First Division Assistant (FDA) in Karnataka Kodava Sahitya Academy since 1998. Petitioner-accused No.1 was the President of the said Academy during 2014 and he was insisting the informant for sexual favour, and was misbehaving and touching her inappropriately. When the informant refused to co-operate with the petitioner, he was abusing her in filthy language and also criminally intimidated her. It is stated that accused No.2-the Registrar was supporting accused No.1 and therefore she requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action against the petitioner.

On the basis of first information, the FIR in Crime No.73/2015 of Madikeri Town Police Station came to be registered for the above said offences. The investigation was undertaken and the 'B' report came to be filed, forming an opinion that the informant deliberately filed a false complaint against the petitioner. After filing of 'B' report before the trial Court, it has issued notice to respondent No.2, upon which, respondent No.2 filed the objections to the B report, in the form of a Protest Petition, contending that the accused is politically influential person and a Congress Party Spokes Person and therefore, with undue influence, he has made the police to file B report, ignoring her statement. Upon consideration of the Protest Petition, learned Magistrate permitted respondent No.2 to record her sworn statement and also to produce the documents.

Respondent No.2 examined herself as PW.1, recorded her sworn statement and produced as many as 26 documents. The documents that are produced before the Trial Court by respondent No.2 includes her complaint, the mahazar, the complaint to the Chief Minister, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement, the endorsement issued by the office of the Chief Minister. Similar complaints were addressed to the Director of Kannada and Sanskrit Directorate, the Chairman of Human Rights Commission, the Karnataka State Women Commission, along with the direction issued by the Commission addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Kodagu District, forwarding the complaint and asking him to provide necessary protection to respondent No.2 and to submit a report. The documents that are obtained by respondent No.2 under Right To Information Act, to conten