(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) These appeals and Criminal Revision Petition are preferred against the Judgment of conviction dated 25th June, 2024 and order on sentence dated 27th June, 2024 passed in SC No.262 of 2019 by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court".)

2. Criminal Appeal No.100026 of 2025 is preferred by the State under Section 377 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 418 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit seeking enhancement of punishment by modifying the sentence dated 27th June 2024 and imposing maximum sentence as provided for the offence punishable under Sections 120B , 195 , 211 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

3. Criminal Appeals No.100354, 100355, 100356, 100357, 100358, 100370 & 100371 of 2024 are preferred by the accused 2 to 13 in SC No.262 of 2019, challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 25th June 2024 and order on Sentence dated 27th June 2024 passed in SC No.262 of 2019 by the trial Court.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024

4. Complainant-Tukaram Balesh Majjagi has preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.100305 of 2024 under Sections 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the sentence dated 27th June, 2024 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge in SC No.262 of 2019, seeking enhancement of sentence, which the statutes prescribe.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank and status before the trial Court. Factual matrix of the case:

6. Brief facts leading to these appeals and Revision Petition are that, Police Inspector of Malmaruti Police Station, Belagavi filed charge-sheet, against accused No.1 only, in Crime No.44, 45 & 46 of 2017. All the three Crimes were merged together for offences punishable under Sections 195 , 211 , 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 of IPC. The Investigating Officer dropped filing of charge-sheet against other accused, viz. Nataji Peeraji Patil, Ajit Mayappa Pujari, Mallasarja Shivarai Shapurakar, Subhash Mallappa Hullolli, Irappa Mahadev Pattar, Mallikarjun Sangappa Radiyal, Bheemappa Lenkappa Godalkundaragi, Rajendra Bhupal Halingali and Suresh Kallappa Kamble. After filing of

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 charge sheet, jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance against accused No.1 for the abovesaid offences and case was registered in CC No.256 of 2019. After its committal to the Court of Sessions, case came to be registered in SC No.262 of 2019. Subsequently, as per the order of trial Court dated 30th June 2020 passed on the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, other accused are arrayed as accused 2 to 13 in the case, to face trial along with accused No.1.

7. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 12th February 2017, Complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1), filed three complaints before Malmaruti Police Station, Belagavi against accused 1 to

10. In the complaints it is stated that the complainant was working as Executive Engineer (Operation & Maintenance) in HESCOM, Rural Division, Belagavi between 26th June 2014 and 03rd February 2015. During the said period, accused were also working in various Sections and in different capacities in HESCOM, Rural Division, Belagavi. The complainant worked sincerely with dedication and devotion for more than thirty years in the Organisation. He was known for his efficiency in the department and in that regard, he has also received

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 certificates and medals from the State and Central Governments and also from various other Societies. Accused 2 to 10, being unable to tolerate the honours received by the complainant, with an intention to defame and harass the complainant so as to cause his suspension, hatched conspiracy and in collusion with accused No.1, decided to give a false complaint against the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1). As a part of the said conspiracy, on 14th November 2014, the accused No.1 gave complaint to the Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli, alleging that on 13th November 2014 at Engineers' Association Building, Belagavi, the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1), with the co-operation of deceased M.T. Thakkalaki and one Maruti S Dodamani, gave mental harassment to her. On the basis of the said complaint, the Chief Engineer issued memorandum dated 24th February 2015 to Women's Grievance Redressal Committee to conduct enquiry. The said Committee, after conducting enquiry and upon going through (1) Details furnished by the Police Commissioner, Cyber Crime, Bengaluru as to the call details and its tower locations; (2) Google map; (3) WhatsApp messages dated 13th November 2014 pertaining to mobile

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 No.9439366373 and the statements of witnesses, gave report to the effect that the allegation of harassment made against the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) in the complaint dated 13th November 2014, prima facie, appears to be false. Accused No.1, has not preferred any appeal against the said enquiry report.

8. With regard to the incident, on 19th November 2014, accused No.1 gave false complaint before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.286 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 354A , 341 , 504 , 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Investigating officer, after conducting enquiry, filed 'B' final report on 03rd June 2015 before JMFC-II Court, Belagavi and the said 'B' report was accepted by the Court on 11th January, 2016. In relation to the alleged incident, on 22nd January 2015, the accused No.1 has filed a false complaint against the Complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.19 of 2015 for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and on 06th June, 2015, the Investigating officer has filed 'B' final report before the JMFC-II Court, Belagavi and the report was accepted by the Court on 11th January 2016. Being

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 aggrieved by the acceptance of said 'B' final reports by the Court, the accused No.1 filed Criminal Revision Petitions in No.54 and 55 of 2016 before the XI Additional District & Sessions Court, Belagavi. The said Court, after considering the averments made in the affidavits filed by the accused No.1, dismissed the said Criminal Revision Petitions. In the affidavits filed before the XI Additional District & Sessions Court, Belagavi, the accused No.1 has stated that the complainant- T.B. Majjagi (PW1) was a strict and efficient officer. It is also stated that the accused, not intending to work under the complainant, used accused No.1 as a tool with an intention to cause the complainant's transfer out of Belagavi division. They abetted and induced accused No.1 to give false complaint against the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) by making allegations that he attempted to rape her. It is also stated that the accused created false circumstances, so as to defame the complainant in the society, made false allegations through Women's Association and through electronic and print media against the complainant stating that, he, with co-operation of M.T.Thakkalaki and Maruti S. Dodamani, tried to rape her and physically harassed her. They have also made false allegations

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 against him to the Malmaruti Police Station; to the Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli; to the President State Women's Commission; to the Human Rights Commission; to the Chief Minister; and to the Home Minister and caused injustice to him.

9. In the said complaint, accused No.1 has also stated that on 13th November, 2014 at about 1.00 PM, when she was working in the office, the complainant with the help of her higher officer one Sri Karur, Assistant Executive Engineer, called her and informed that the PW1 called her to the Stores to discuss about repair of a HESCOM Lorry. It is also stated that when she went to Stores, there M.T. Thakkalaki told her that the complainant called her to Engineers' Association. When she went to Engineers' Association Building, complainant switched off her cellphone and asked her as to why she had not come to the hotel, abused her in filthy language, dragged her here and there; and M.T.Thakkalaki and Maruti S.Dodamani threatened her of dire consequences as she, at the instigation and help of accused 2 to 10, gave false complaint against Complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1), M.T. Thakkalaki and Maruti S. Dodamani (PW2), to the Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024

10.Accused No.1 has stated in the affidavits that, on 19th November 2014, making false allegations against the complainant-TB Majjiagi (PW1), she gave complaint to Malmaruti Police station in Crime No.286 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 354A , 341 , 504 , 506 , read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, which complaint came to be registered against T.B. Majjagi, M.T.Thakkalaki and Maruti S. Dodamani. But, no such incident had taken place. It is stated that on 13th November 2014 she had not been called through the phone of Sri Karur, she did not go to Engineers' Association Building between 1:00 & 2:30 pm, and at that time, she was at property bearing No.373, CTS No.8810 of M.M. Extension. She has also stated that due to the abetment of accused 2 to 10, with an intention to cause transfer of complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) out of Belagavi Division and also due to official enmity against M.T. Thakkalaki and Maruti S. Dodamani and to tarnish their reputation, she has filed false complaint. In the affidavits, it is also stated that on 18th January 2015, when she had been to Mysore, one Pramod who is very close to Chief Minister, called her to office and by contacting PW1 over his mobile, made the accused No.1 talk to PW1. In the said conversation,

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 PW1 told the accused No.1 that nobody will marry her as the matter has also appeared in print and electronic media and by giving life threat to her, he asked her to take back the complaint. Alleging same, she has filed complaint on 22nd January, 2015 before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.19 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code. In the affidavit, she has also stated that she does not know Pramod and because accused 2 to 10 had forced her, she has filed the said false complaint against the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1). She has also stated that though the said incident had not taken place, she gave false information to the print and electronic media and to Women's Association stating about the occurrence of alleged incident. She has also stated that PW1 has not threatened her and she has filed the said complaint only at the instance of accused 2 to

10. On the basis of said complaint, the Investigating officer arrested PW1-T.B. Majjagi on 19th November, 2014 and produced him before the JMFC-II Court, Belagavi and he was sent to judicial custody. On the ground of ill-health, the complainant took treatment in BIMS Hospital, Belagavi from 19th to 24th November, 2014 and the Court has enlarged him on

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 bail on 24th November, 2014. Against the said order, accused No.1 filed application before the II Additional Fast Track Court, Belagavi, seeking cancellation of bail and the Court rejected the said Bail application on 28th September 2015.

11. On 05th December 2014, accused No.2, though was not the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union and also being fully aware that the accused No.1 by colluding with other accused has given false complaint with an intention to defame the complainant and cause his suspension from service, by projecting himself as the Vice-President of the KPTCL Employees Union and by using the Letterhead of the Association, has written letter to the Superintending Engineer, HESCOM, Belagavi seeking to suspend complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1). The accused No.2, though was not the Vice-President of the Association, by colluding with other accused, has created false documents and has written the said letter. On the basis of said letter, the Superintending Engineer, HESCOM, Belagavi, addressed letter dated 10th December, 2014 to the Chief Engineer, HESCOM, Hubli to take action against the PW1-T.B. Majjagi. With regard to the said incident, Sri Jagadish Shettar, Leader of Opposition, has also made submission to the Speaker

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 on 17th December 2014 during zero hours to suspend the complainant from service and further on 19th December 2014, the said fact was also raised during Sessions at Belagavi.

12. It is also stated that on 03rd February 2015, accused No.1 made another complaint against complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.26 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 , 511 , 109 of Indian Penal Code alleging that being unable to bear the mental harassment given by PW1 forcing her to take back the complaints, on 29th January, 2015 at about 4.00 am, she made an attempt to commit suicide by consuming expired/date- barred tablets viz. Meftal forte and spass. In the said crime, the Investigating Officer has filed 'B' final report. In the said crime, the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) was in judicial custody for nine days. Further, Crime No.26 of 2015 was registered against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 309 , 511 and 109 of Indian Penal Code.

13. In the above manner, all the accused, with an intention to defame the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) in the Society, creating false circumstances with the support of various

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Associations, Societies and also with the financial support, have given false information against the complainant through Women Association, and through electronic and print media. Based on 'B' final reports of Investigating Officer, Report of Women's Grievance Redressal Committee, and affidavits-Exhibits P11 and P12 filed by accused No.1 before the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Court, Belagavi, prima facie, it appears that accused have hatched conspiracy and filed complaints before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.286 of 2014, 19 of 2015 and 26 of 2015, through accused No.1 and defamed the complainant and caused his illegal detention and thereby, curtailed his right of freedom and hence, accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 109 , 192 , 211 , 195 , 120B , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

14. The Investigating Officer, has rightly filed 'B' final report and as the accused No.1 has filed affidavits before the District Court, Belagavi, seeking to withdraw Criminal Revision Petitions. Thus, accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 195 , 120B , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. But, the Investigating Officer

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 has not taken any action against them. On the basis of three complaints filed by T.B. Majjagi-PW1, the Police Inspector of Malmaruti Police Station, registered case in Crime No.44, 45 & 46 of 2017 against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 195 , 211 , 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 of IPC and forwarded First Information Report to the Court. Thereafter, Police Inspector of Malmaruti Police Station visited the scene of offence, prepared spot panchanama and recorded the further statement of complainant-PW1 and the statements of witnesses. He also seized the documents produced by the staff and got permission of the Court to keep the said documents with him. On 9th April 2017, he collected the sample signatures of accused 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 13, 12 and 11 in the presence of panchas and sent the same for analysis.

15. PW10-Investigating Officer, as per the order of Honourable Supreme Court, wrote letter to the learned JMFC-II Court, Belagavi seeking permission to continue investigation in the said crimes and got permission accordingly. He recorded the statement of complainant and issued two DVDs and a photo album produced by him. He also recorded the statements of witnesses. As the Investigating Officer, found prima facie

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 material against accused No.1, he filed charge-sheet against accused No.1 for the alleged offences before the learned JMFC- II Court, Belagavi, who registered Case in CC No.256 of 2019. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 26th July 2019, committed the case to Sessions Court for trial under Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure. After committal of case to the Sessions Court, case in SC No.262 of 2019 came to be registered. Accused No.1 appeared before the Court and was released on bail.

16. On 11th September, 2019, charges were framed against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 195 , 211 , 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Upon application being filed by the complainant under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial Court has passed an order on 13th June 2020, to array respondents as accused 2 to 13 to face trial along with accused No.1. On 14th November, 2022, the trial Court framed additional charges against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the same was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to her. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On the same day, charges were

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 framed against accused 2 to 13 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B , 195 , 211 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 read with Section 149 of IPC. Further, on the same day, i.e. on 14th November, 2022, the trial Court framed charges against accused 2 to 13 for offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC. The same were explained to the accused in the language known to them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

17. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution, in all, examined thirteen witnesses as PWs1 to 13 and marked 81 documents as Exhibits P1 to P81. Upon closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses appearing against them. Except accused No.4, Written arguments of accused 1 to 3 and 5 to 13 have been filed. The defence have adduced evidence of DW1 and produced documents as Exhibits D1 to D32. Accused No.1 has filed written statement under Section 233(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024

18. Having heard arguments on both sides and after considering the written arguments of accused 1 to 3, 10, 12, 13, 5, 7, 8, 6 and 9, the trial Court passed the Judgment of conviction dated 25th June, 2024 against accused 1 to 13 for commission of offence punishable under Section 120B , 195 , 211 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court passed sentence dated 27th June, 2024 ordering accused 1 to 13 to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 195 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and in default to pay fine, they shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. Further, accused 1 to 13 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 467 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and in default to pay fine, the shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. Further, accused 1 to 13 to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and in default to pay

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 fine, they shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. Accused 1 to 13 were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 468 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and in default to pay fine, the shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months; the accused 1 to 13 were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year 2 months and to pay fine of Rs.6,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code; in default to pay fine, they shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month; further the accused 1 to 13 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 211 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and in default to pay fine, they shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month; and accused 1 to 13 were further, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and in default to pay fine, shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and the sentence and imprisonment shall run concurrently.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024

19. Being aggrieved by this Judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused 1 to 13 have preferred Crl. Appeals No.100354/2024, 100355/2024, 100356/2024, 100357/2024, 100358/2024, 100370/2024, and 100371/2024, challenging the same; complainant has preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.100305 of 2024 seeking enhancement of sentence as prescribed under the statute; and the State has preferred appeal No.100026 of 2025 for enhancement of sentence. Submission on behalf of appellants/accused 2 & 4 to 12:

20. Sri Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/accused 2 & 4 to 12 in Criminal Appeals 100355, 100356, 100370 and 100371 of 2024 submitted that the Judgment of Conviction and order on Sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is opposed to law, procedure, facts, and probabilities of the case. He would submit that the alleged motive and intention of the accused to commit the alleged offences has not been proved. As regards the allegation made by the prosecution as to conspiracy under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code is concerned, none of the witnesses or documents would speak about the exact date, time and place of conspiracy. Complainant-PW1, for the first time, has come up

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 with dates of conspiracy only during the course of evidence before the Court and stated that on 02nd, 05th and 08th November 2014, at about 6.00 pm, all the accused gathered in the parking place of Office of HESCOM Urban Division at Nehru Nagar, Belagavi. These dates neither appear in the complaint- Exhibit P1 nor in the panchanama or in previous proceedings alleged to be held before the departmental enquiry, report of Women's Grievance Redressal Committee, etc. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations levelled against the accused. He would submit that the PW1 and other witnesses have admitted that the alleged place of conspiracy is a public place, so also, all the accused were working in different places and they never worked together with accused No.1 or with PW1 at any point of time. Therefore, the allegation of alleged conspiracy is only created one. It is further submitted that some of the accused have appeared in the photographs produced by the prosecution. Those photographs are collected by PW1 himself and got prepared to suit to his allegations. It is stated in the allegations that some of the accused have signed Exhibit P19 to give harassment to PW1, but it is important to note that neither prosecution nor PW1 have alleged that

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 accused 2 to 4, 7 to 9 and 11 to 13 are not the elected members of KPTCL Employees Union or it was denied that they are the Office Bearers of the said Union. It is the main allegation of the complainant and the prosecution that accused No.2 created false document Exhibit P19, mentioning himself as a Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union, though he was not. But, PW1 in his cross-examination, has admitted that accused No.2 was Vice-President and DW1 has clearly stated in his evidence that accused No.2 was appointed as Vice President, as per Exhibit D32. Therefore, Exhibit D32 is contrary to the letter-Exhibit P28 issued by PW13. This proves that the accused No.2 was Vice President of the KPTCL Employees Union at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that there is no intention or motive on behalf of the accused that, after issuing the letter at Exhibit P19, PW1 was suspended and transferred to some other place. On the contrary, it is established by the defence that PW1 was suspended as per Rules and Regulations, as PW1 was remanded to judicial custody for more than 48 hours. Exhibit P19 is ignored by higher officials and same is not considered at any point of time.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Therefore, the allegations of cheating, fabrication of documents are not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

21. The other allegation of the prosecution that Affidavits- Exhibits P11 & P12 filed by accused No.1 before the XI Additional District & Sessions Court at Belagavi, wherein for the first time, the name of accused 2 to 10 appeared and on the basis of said affidavits, PW1 filed complaint before Malmaruti Police which was registered in Crime No.44 of 2017 for the above said offences is concerned, till that date, the complainant never made any attempt to file a case against any of the accused including accused No.1. Though 'B' final reports have been submitted long back by Malmaruti Police in all the three cases filed by accused No.1, the Report given by Women Grievance Redressal Committee stating that there is no water in the complaint made by accused No.1, so also, the reports of his higher officers stating that the incident, as alleged in the complaint by accused No.1 as false, the complainant-T.B. Majjagi never took any action against any of the accused till filing alleged affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 before the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the inordinate delay in filing the complaint by

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Complainant-PW1, which is beyond a period of two and a half years. It only shows the intention of complainant-PW1 that by taking time to create documents, he has filed complaint against the accused.

22. Initially, accused 2 to 9 have been exonerated and discharged from the charges levelled against them as per the order of this Court in Criminal Petition No.100261 of 2017 dated 16th February 2018, as also, as per the orders of Retired District Judge Sri J.S. Somashekhar, in his report dated 04th January 2018. Later the Department, again, exonerated these accused after conducting de-nova trial as per order dated 07th June 2024. Therefore, in the said proceedings before the High Court as well as before the departmental enquiry, considering the allegations, evidence and documents produced before this Court, so also considering those documents, the High Court quashed all three First Information Reports filed by PW1 and also the private complaint filed by PW1 for defamation against accused 2 to 10 and the Presiding Officer was pleased to exonerate accused 2 to 10 from the allegations. He submits that in the remarkable Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of DR. MINAKETAN PANI v. STATE OF

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 ORISSA rendered in Criminal M.C.No.3407 of 2010 decided on 20th May 2022, it is held that if the facts and circumstances of the departmental enquiry and the facts and circumstances before the trial Court are one and the same, and if the accused is exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry, then the trial Court can also accept the enquiry report and exonerate the accused in the proceedings before it. In the said Judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa was pleased to consider the Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that regard.

23. It is further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that allegations made to attract the offences punishable under Sections 195 & 211 of IPC, wherein no action was taken against the alleged affidavits filed by accused No.1 or enquiry conducted against any of the accused, as contemplated under Sections 340 & 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure and also before the Magistrate Court, wherein 'B' reports have been filed in all the complaints lodged by accused No.1 and there also no orders have been passed for the offences punishable under Sections 195 & 211 of IPC as per the provisions of Section 340 or 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure . The investigation agency has no right to investigate the matter under those offences

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 without prior permission of the Court. In this regard, he relies on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KAMALAPATI TRIVEDI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (1980)2 SCC 91 and the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of RAJKUMAR MALAPANI v. AKELLA SHRINIVAS RAO reported in 2011 Crl.L.J. 2997.

24. Learned Counsel would further submit that the documents collected by PW1 which were handed over to the investigating agency, have not been compared by the investigating agency and the investigating agency had not at all conducted any investigation in support of their allegations, except relying upon the documents submitted by PW1. It is further submitted that none of the electronic documents or the Media report submitted by PW1 before the investigating agency or before this Court, have been supported by any certificate as contemplated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR v. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908. PW1 has also not produced any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to show as to who had taken the photographs from Exhibit P2 or from

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 the compact disc given by PW11. Further, PW11 also has not given any certificate in respect of he downloading the news appeared in Electronic Media, before the trial Court and also before the enquiry conducted by the Women's Grievance Redressal Committee or before the departmental enquiry. The prosecution has not submitted any certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, wherein the prosecution relied on the photographs, clips/images from compact disc, call details, Google map, WhatsApp chat, etc. which are compulsory and mandatory. The trial Court cannot go through those documents without valid certificate, under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, he would submit that the documents produced by PW1 do not help the prosecution to prove all the offences alleged against accused and on this point alone accused are entitled for acquittal, is his submission.

25. He would further submit that the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence are: (1) accused are always innocent, (2) the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and (3) while proving the case, if serious doubts and circumstances arise before the trial Court and if two views are possible, then the benefit of doubt and the view in favour of the

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 accused is to be given to the accused. With regard to affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12 filed by the accused No.1 before the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, the learned Counsel would submit that, Article 20(3) of Constitution of India clearly states that, no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself/herself. Therefore, the alleged affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12 cannot be construed against the accused in the trial Court. He would submit that the defence tried their level best before the trial Court to show that the said affidavits were created only with an intention to file a case against the accused 2 to 13. The trial Court during the trial, posed question to PW1 and PW3 under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, as to whether the accused persons harassed PW1, and to the said question, PW3 admitted that accused have never harassed PW1. Under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, there is discretionary power to the trial Court and to the judges to pose questions in order to discover proper proof of relevant facts, and to ask any question, as it pleases, in any form, at any time, or to any of the witnesses or any of the parties. Therefore, the answer given by PW3 would go to establish that accused 2 to 13 are innocent, and they

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 neither hatched any conspiracy nor harassed, created any document, given any false evidence or have participated in any crime. He submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in overlooking the major discrepancies occurred in the evidence of witnesses, which disprove the prosecution case. Therefore, he submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the documents, facts and evidence in its proper perspective and has erred in convicting the accused. On all these grounds he sought to allow Criminal Appeals No.100355, 100356, 100370 & 100371 of 2024 filed on behalf of the accused 2 & 4 to 12. To buttress his submission, he has also relied on the judgment in the case of SANTOKH SINGH v. IZHAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER reported in case of 1973(2) SCC 406.

Submission on behalf of appellant/Accused No.3:

26. Sri Jagdish Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused No.3 in Criminal Appeal No.100354 of 2024, would submit that pursuant to complaint made by accused No.1 against the complainant, an internal Inquiry Committee was constituted in which the officials took note of the statements of

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 the complainant as well as accused No.1. He would submit that though the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) had alleged that accused No.1 had lodged a bogus complaint against him, yet, at no point of time prior to this, the complainant has named the present accused. The complainant has admitted in the cross- examination that even during the enquiry, he has not stated anything about the other accused, including this accused having instigated or aided for lodging of bogus complaint by accused No.1. It is only based on the affidavits filed by the accused No.1 that the involvement of other accused is being alleged. Accused No.1 has also lodged a complaint way back in the year 2012 which is registered in SC No.70 of 2012. He would further submit that though the incident is of the year 2014, the complaint was lodged only in the year 2017 and the inordinate delay in filing the complaint is not explained either in the First Information Report or during the evidence. He would submit that the trial Court has not considered this aspect and further submit that trial Court should have dismissed the case on the ground of delay alone. The trial Court has not considered the fact that PW1 had sexually harassed accused No.1 and in collusion with police officers, managed to get filed 'B' final

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 reports concerning the said incidents and further, due to the mental harassment meted out by PW1, so also, complainant inducing accused No.1 to sign affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12, making allegations of involvement of other accused including the present accused, accused No.1 had tried to commit suicide. The contents of affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 filed by accused No.1, could not have been treated either as confession or as material conclusion concerning the involvement of the present appellant but only as affidavits, and the same could not have been relied upon by the trial Court to conclude the involvement of the present appellant in the incident concerning the involvement of the complainant. The affidavits filed by accused No.1 do not comply with the provisions of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice 1968, more specifically, provisions found in Rule (1) of Chapter XVI. Since provisions of Criminal Rules of Practice having not been followed, Affidavits filed by accused No.1, could not have been relied upon by the trial Court.

27. He would further submit that the trial Court relied on the evidence of witnesses, including the evidence of complainant, wherein complainant also has not deposed anything about the place, time and date on which the alleged

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 conspiracy took place. The evidence of said witnesses is only a hearsay evidence and could not be treated as a direct evidence and as such, there is no weight in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against the appellant/accused.

28. His further submission is that the name of the appellant/accused is not reflected in the charge sheet and only upon the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking arraying the complainant as accused, he was arrayed as an accused in the instant case and there is no credible material to even file a charge sheet against the present accused. The entire case of prosecution is based on contradictory and circumstantial evidence and hence, he prays for acquittal of the appellant/accused. Submission on behalf of appellant/accused No.1:

29. Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.100357 of 2024, would submit that the entire case of prosecution revolves around the alleged statement/affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 alleged to have been sworn in by appellant/accused No.1. There are several legal infirmities in affidavits Exhibits P11 &

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 P12. These Exhibits cannot be construed as affidavits at all as per Chapter XVI Rule (1) of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968, as the affidavits filed by accused no.1, do not contain cause-title. Admittedly, the person who has identified the appellant is not the counsel on record. Even the suit in OS No.1/2023 (Exhibit D23) is pending consideration before competent Civil Court, so also, complaint in CC No.68 of 2022 (Exhibit D22) is also pending consideration before the competent Criminal Court. Admittedly, while withdrawing/dismissing the Criminal Revision Petitions, no order is passed on alleged affidavits nor they are taken into consideration. The Criminal Revision Petitions preferred by the appellant/accused No.1 are also not dismissed on merits and if really, the respondent therein i.e. complainant herein, was really innocent, he ought to have resisted withdrawal of Revision Petitions and contested the matter on merits as well as prosecuted the appellant/accused No.1 for having given false evidence. The contents of Affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 have not been proved by confronting the same to the appellant herein and none of the Investigating Officers have recorded the statement/confession of the appellant. Mere marking of

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 documents, by itself, would not prove the contents of the same. In fact, if the affidavits are read in its entirety, no offence can be made out as against the appellant/accused No.1, as it would clearly demonstrate that no intention was forthcoming on the part of the appellant herein. The overall mitigating factors would clearly reveal that, in fact, the appellant herein has been utilised as a tool to settle the score of the complainant-PW1. The Investigating Officer ought to have conducted the investigation in a way so as to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations made in the affidavits or at least recorded the statement of the appellant/accused No.1. The document at Exhibit D1 which is the complaint filed by Smt. Renuka Shashikant Appugol in Crime No.209 of 2010 and Exhibit D7 the complaint filed by Suresh Kallappa Kamble/Accused No.10 in Crime No.193/2010, itself speak in volumes about the activities of PW1-complainant. The trial Court has failed to consider the explanation offered by the appellant under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and also not considered the statement of appellant made under Section 233(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the appellant has clearly stated as to under what circumstance, affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 were

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 prepared. Absolutely, there is no independent evidence or eye- witness to show the gathering of accused near the parking place of Office of HESCOM Urban Division at Nehru Nagar, Belagavi. There is no cogent evidence established by the prosecution that on 02nd, 05th and 08th November 2014, at about 6.00 pm the accused No.1 and other accused joined together, conspired and created the letter dated 05th December, 2014 in the name of KPTCL Employees Union. The said letter does not bear the signature accused No.1, so also, it is not the allegation of the prosecution that accused No.1 has submitted representations at Exhibits P14 & P19 to the Superintending Engineer or any other Officer. It is further submitted that the place of conspiracy alleged by the complainant, is an open space as can be gathered from the cross-examination dated 29th December, 2023 (on page No.61 at paragraph No.109) and also from the evidence of PW7 in his cross-examination dated 28th February, 2024 at page No.2 paragraph that, "£Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ §¢UÉ PÀgÉzÁUÀ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉÝ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. »ÃUÁV ªÀiÁ¼ÀªÀiÁgÀÄw ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á ZÉ£ÁßVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §¤ß JAzÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ °TvÀ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ÀÄ ¤Ãr®è.". It is also not forthcoming whether there was any altercation by

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 accused No.1 with the complainant soon before the incident becoming subject matter of Crime No.286 of 2014. There is an evidence to establish that the incident truly happened on 13th November 2014, where the complainant PW6-Mr.Vinod Karur, Mr. M.T. Thakkalaki and Mr. Maruti S. Dodamani are involved in the incident. Learned Counsel would submit that copy of report of Women Grievance Redressal Committee is inclusive of part of documents marked as Exhibit P15, which the Court may consider. Further, he would submit that accused No.1, through her letter to the very authority, stated that "as per statement of Sri Karur, Assistant Executive Engineer (E1), during the enquiry, he has called from his mobile number 9448370242 to 9448370243 at 12:38 pm, and in the call statement submitted by them, the details of calls between those numbers are not found. Hence, he visited the BSNL office, where he was told that the call details are supplied in the prescribed format only (html). But, the call details is in the excel sheet, must have been manipulated." Like this, many lacunae are identified. The above facts, clearly show that complainant-T.B. Majjagi has submitted false documents and created the story to misguide the Enquiry Committee. The accused No.1, further submitted

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 as to three attachments to her e-mail dated 22nd May 2020 addressed to Enquiry Officer, wherein the first attachment reads as "since the call record details obtained by the Committee was manipulated one as they are provided in the Excel sheet, the calls connected between PW6, accused No.1 and PW1 are not reflecting in the records. As such, the said report at Exhibit P15 is not fair and the same is biased." T.B. Majjagi-PW1 in his cross-examination on 16th January, 2020 has deposed that, "I have not given any complaint to my senior authorities stating that accused No.1 was doing illegal works. It is true to suggest that myself and B.V. Sindhu were working in the department together." On perusal of these admissions, it appears that there was no animosity between the complainant and accused No.1, either in connection with the service or otherwise prior to incident dated 13th November 2014. As such, there should not be any motive for accused No.1 to make false allegations against the complainant unnecessarily.

30. Further, learned counsel would submit that the evidence of PW1 shows that he has deposed that, "it is true to suggest that in spite of complaint by B.V. Sindhu, I was promoted as Superintending Engineer, I was given timely

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 increments and my pension was not stopped." This only shows the high-handedness of PW1 in the Department. The WhatsApp messages exchanged between accused No.1 and Mr. Shivaram Revankar (who subsequently married each other), disclose that on 13th November 2014, PW1 narrated the happenings and circumstances prior to entering the premises wherein the complainant-PW1 called her through PW6 and the further incident of sexual harassment as per the subject matter of Crime No.286 of 2014. This goes to show that the statement made in the contents of Crime No.286 of 2014 are true and that PW1 asked PW6 to call accused No.1 on 13th November, 2014 at about 1.00 pm to go to Stores, where M.T. Thakkalaki and Maruti S. Dodamani directed accused No.1 to go to Engineers Association Building and when the accused No.1 went there, the complainant-PW1 asked her to switch off her mobile phone and outraged her modesty and committed sexual harassment on her. It also contains the statement given by the accused No.13-Drakshayini M. Nesargi before the Enquiry Committee that she met accused No.1 near the Stores and enquired her as to where she was going at that time? A perusal of Exhibit D12 and D6, reveals that the complainant was booked by Malmaruti

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Police Station in Crime No.209 of 2010, which complaint lodged by one Mrs. Renuka Shashikant Appugol, relating to sexual harassment. The prosecution documents themselves speak about the publications of stories of complainant-PW1 with regard to his act of sexual harassment. In this case also 'B' report came to be submitted by Police. Exhibit D7 speaks that PW1 was booked by Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.193 of 2010 upon the complaint lodged by accused No.10 for offences punishable and Section 323 , 504 , 506 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. In the said case also, 'B' report came to be submitted by the Police.

31. Exhibit D12 speaks that one P. Madhusudana had lodged complaint against PW1 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147 , 148 , 323 , 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, before Malmaruti Police Station which is registered as Crime No.213 of 2011, which also ended in filing of 'B' report. The counter case got registered in the said Police Station in Crime No.214 of 2011 filed by T.B. Majjagi-PW1 against said Madhusudana also ended in filing 'B' report. These circumstances show that the complainant is always in habit of

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 involving in miscreant activities and in the activities of sexual harassment. Further, these documents also show high- handedness of complainant-PW1 in getting all the cases closed by getting filed 'B' reports, even in his own complaint filed before the said Police Station in Crime No.214 of 2011. The Police, surprisingly, filed 'B' report in the case and counter case where the incident is admitted by both the parties. The three cases filed by accused No.1 in Crime No.286 of 2014, 19 of 2015 and 26 of 2015, also ended up in filing 'B' reports in the same line as in earlier incidents, though there were serious allegations of sexual harassment against the complainant-PW1. Moreover, the documents produced by the prosecution and defence themselves goes to show that the antecedents of complainant are always involved with criminal cases, sexual harassment, and corruption. Learned Counsel would submit that neither the Revision Court nor the trial Court have held any enquiry against accused No.1 for initiating action against her for the offences punishable under Sections 195 & 211 of IPC or any similar offences of the said Chapter of Indian Penal Code for fabricating false evidence and for filing false complaints to procure the conviction of PW1, when such

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 affidavits came on record of the cases. Even the Investigating Officer of that case took no action for proceeding against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 195 & 211 of IPC.

32. The learned Counsel would submit that absolutely no material elements are made out by the prosecution for filing false complaints against the complainant by accused No.1. Further, the intention of accused No.1 for filing such affidavits before the Court is also not established by the Court. Neither of the Investigating Officers of three cases wherein 'B' reports have been filed, have taken any steps to proceed against accused No.1 for filing of false cases. The said documents never took the characteristic of affidavit within the meaning of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice. The complainant wanted to book accused 2 to 13 for his vengeance act and for the reasons best known to him and to make the accused No.1 a scapegoat, so also, to take revenge against her since he was remanded to judicial custody in Crime No.26 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 , 511 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, and also for being suspended from service. The statement of accused No.1 was recorded before Magistrate

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.286 of 2014. The complainant did not file any counter- affidavit to the same. In spite of this, Police filed 'B' report in the said case. Hence, he submits that looking at any angle, it is not appearing or established that accused No.1 has fabricated false evidence, forged documents and filed false cases against the complainant-T.B. Majjagi to procure his conviction that too conspiring with other accused. Absolutely, there are no evidences to hold accused No.1 guilty of charges under Section 195 , 211 , 420 , 468 , 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. Accused No.1 has never created any documents by way of forgery or used the same either otherwise or as genuine. No offence is made out against accused No.1 under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and sought to acquit accused No.1 of alleged offences.

33. His further submission is that the accused No.1 had alleged that M.T. Thakkalaki was produced before JMFC-II Court, Belagavi in Crime No.286 of 2014 based on true facts. Learned Magistrate has also recorded the statement of accused No.1, under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The police, without investigating into the matter, have filed 'B' report. Further, he would submit that during February 2016,

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 accused No.1 had been posted to Gulbarga. In March 2016, her husband Shivaram Revankar, who was working as Junior Engineer, was suspended on false allegations. During May 2016, she was pregnant and was suffering due to severe hot at Gulbarga and at that time, T.B. Majjige-complainant has asked her to withdraw Criminal Revision Petitions, promising her of getting revoked the suspension of her husband and also to arrange for her transfer from Gulbarga to a place nearer to her native place. The said affidavits are prepared at the instance of the complainant and she was made to present those affidavits in Criminal Revision Petitions personally without representation of her Advocate, that too, taking the case on Board in advance without any reason. Accused No.1, never intended to file such affidavits before the Revision Court, willingly. The Advocate who had identified accused No.1 in the said affidavits was also not known to her and she was never acquainted with him. In this regard, accused No.1 filed statement under Section 233(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Documents pertaining to revocation of suspension of Shivaram Revankar by HESCOM Authority and his reinstatement to duty on 2nd February 2017 and the discharge summary pertaining to the accused No.1-

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 B.V.Sindhu are also produced. He would further submit that in view of Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act, the confession made by the accused No.1, under inducement, are not admissible in evidence. Learned Counsel would submit that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and record in accordance with law and facts, and on all these grounds sought to allow the appeal.

34. To substantiate his arguments, he has relied on the following decisions.:

35. Sri B.V. Somapur, learned counsel appearing for appellant/accused No.13 in Criminal Appeal No.100358 of 2024 submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence is illegal, improper, arbitrary, capricious and perverse and the same is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that absolutely there are no evidence

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 against the accused that attract the alleged commission of offence. There is no single/word or allegation against this appellant/accused No.13 regarding commission of alleged offences by her except the say that the letter dated 05th December, 2024 given to the higher authorities making allegations against complainant-T.B. Majjagi is signed by the present appellant which is denied by the appellant. Mere signature on a document cannot be said that the person who has signed on such document was having knowledge of the contents of the document and had intentionally signed the said document. He submitted that the trial Court ought to have taken note of this fact and should have held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused No.13 and should have acquitted her. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal and acquit the accused.

Submissions on behalf of the State:

36. Sri M.B. Gundwade, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely there are no materials to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 sought for dismissal of appeals filed by the appellants/accused. He would further submit that the trial Court has imposed the sentence of imprisonment for only three years and six months for the offence punishable under Sections 195, 467 and 420 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code with payment of Rs.20,000/- each; for two years six months for offence punishable under Section 468 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.10,000/- each; for one year two months with fine of Rs.6,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code; and payment of fine of Rs.6,000/- for offence punishable under Section 211 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.4,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with 149 of Indian Penal Code , which is very meagre. The accused have committed heinous offence. The trial Court ought to have imposed maximum punishment. On all these grounds he sought for allowing the appeal preferred by State, and to dismiss the appeals preferred by the appellants/accused. Submission on behalf of complainant-Revision Petitioner:

37. Sri Zaheerabbas M. Hattarki, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.100305 of 2024 has

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 filed the Revision Petition under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Learned Counsel would submit that the punishment imposed by the trial Court on respondents 2 to 13 for offence punishable under Section 195 Indian Penal Code is very meager. He submits that the prescribed punishment under Section 195 of Indian Penal Code is imprisonment for life, but the trial Court has imposed imprisonment for a period of three years, six months with fine, which is against the procedure and settled legal principle. As the trial Court considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and in view of the gravity of offence, the trial Court ought to have given maximum punishment to respondents 2 to 13 and hence he seeks interference of this Court. He further submits that for the offence punishable under Section, 211 read with 149 of IPC is concerned, the trial Court has sentenced respondents 2 to 13 to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, whereas the punishment prescribed under said Section as applicable in Para II is punishable with imprisonment for seven years and with fine,

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 whereas the trial Court has grossly erred in imposing the quantum of punishment only with a fine of Rs.6,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month and the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. As regards punishment under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the punishment under said Section is imprisonment for seven years with fine, but the trial Court has convicted the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three years six months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, which is very meagre and hence the punishment imposed by the trial Court under this Section is also liable to be interfered with by this Court. As regards, punishment under Section 467 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the statute prescribes punishment that may extend up to ten years, whereas the trial Court has taken too lenient view and imposed imprisonment of three years six months with fine of Rs.6,000/- each, which also is against the principles of sentencing rules and quantum of punishment against the statute. With respect to punishment under Section 468 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the trial Court has imposed a punishment of two years six

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 months with fine of Rs.10,000/- each as against punishment, which may extend to 7 years with fine and hence the learned Counsel seeks enhancement of punishment under the said Section also. With respect to imposing punishment of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that the statute prescribe rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if the accused had abetted such offence. Further in Para II, the punishment prescribed is for a term exceeding six months or fine or both. But the trial Court has imposed payment of fine of Rs.4,000/-, which is far below the punishment prescribed under the statute. Hence, learned Counsel sought for enhancement of punishment as prescribed under statute.

38. The learned Counsel submit that the trial Court has considered the evidence and gone through the documents produced by the prosecution, which shows that the complainant who was a senior-most officer, has worked with great integrity and served the organisation for more than 34 years. He has

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 been honoured by State and Central Governments and various organisations. As the complainant was strict and very punctual in his duties, respondent 2 to 13, to tarnish his image, committed the above offences which have been proved by the prosecution. Hence, he submits that the trial Court erred in not sentencing the accused in deserving manner as prescribed under the statute.

39. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel that several false cases are being filed against the complainant by respondents 2 to 13 in different Courts including High Court and the Supreme Court. The respondent No.2/accused No.1 has gone to the extent of filing several cases and further she has admitted herself in her affidavits that the allegations made are false. That itself shows the quantum of mental agony and the hardship given by the accused to the complainant. Hence, he prays for imposing punishment to respondents 2 to 13 for commission of abovesaid offences as prescribed under the Statute. On all these grounds, he prays for allowing the revision petition by enhancing the punishment.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024

40. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of materials placed before us, the following points would arise for our consideration:

41. Our answer to the above points would be as under:

42. We have carefully examined the materials place before us. The genesis of the case arises out of the complaint filed by PW1-T.B. Majjagi, Superintending Engineer as per Exhibit P1.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 On the basis of the complaint, case came to be registered in Crime No.44 of 2017 on 12th February, 2017 and First Information Report was submitted to the Court as per Exhibit P71 against accused 1 to 10 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 195 , 211 , 34 , 420 , 465 , 120B , 468 , 192 , 471 and 467 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against accused Smt. B.V. Sindhu for commission of offences under Section 195 , 211 , 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and the names of Nataji P Patil, Ajit M Pujeri, Mallasarja S Shahapurkar, Subhash M, Irappa M, Mallikarjuna S, Bhimappa L, Rajendra B, Suresha K, whose names find place in First Information Report as accused 1 to 9, were dropped from the charge-sheet.

43. After filing of charge-sheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance against accused-B.V. Sindhu for the aforesaid commission of offences and case was registered in CC number 256 of 2019 and after its committal to the sessions Court, case in SC No.262 of 2019 came to be registered only against accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu. Accused No.1 appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail. Charges against accused No.1 were framed for commission of offences punishable under

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Sections 185 , 211 , 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

44. To prove the guilt of the accused No.1, prosecution has examined PW1 on 25th October, 2019 and then case was posted to 05th November 2019. On that day, the examination-in-chief of complainant-PW1 was fully recorded and the case was posted for cross-examination of PW1 on 12th November, 2019. On that day, the Counsel for the accused filed application under Section 231 of Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to defer the cross-examination of PW1 till the examination of CW6 & CW7. The same was allowed and cross-examination of PW1 was deferred till examination of CW6 & CW7.

45. The examination-in-chief of CW6 was recorded as PW2 and was bound over to appear on next date of hearing i.e. on 20th November 2019. On the same day, i.e. on 12th November 2019, learned Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure to implead the persons mentioned in the application, as accused. After filing the said application, the trial Court has issued notice to the persons mentioned in the application. The proposed accused

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 appeared before the trial Court through their Counsel. Upon hearing, the trial Court allowed the application filed under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 9th January 2020. The said order was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No.147718 of 2020 connected with Criminal Revision Petition No.100153 of 2020. This Court, by order dated 23rd December 2021, dismissed both the Writ Petition and Criminal Revision Petition. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the same, Special Leave Petitions in No.909 of 2022 and 454 of 2023 were preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same came to be dismissed by order dated to 02nd May 2022 and 09th January, 2023, respectively. Thereafter, the trial Court framed additional charge against accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu for commission of offence punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, on 14th November 2022. Charges were also framed against accused 2 to 13 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code . The same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024

46. To prove the case of accused, prosecution, in all, examined thirteen witnesses as PWs1 to 13 and got marked 81 documents as Exhibits P1 to P81.

47. PW1-T.B. Majjagi, has deposed in his evidence that from 2001 to 3rd February 2022, he worked as Assistant Executive Engineer and as Executive Engineer at HESCOM, Belagavi. The accused No.1, along with other accused, conspired and lodged false complaint against him and two others in Malmaruti Police Station on 19th November, 2014 in Crime No.286 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 354A, 341, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of IPC. In this regard, Police filed 'B' report. The said report was accepted by the learned JMFC-II, Belagavi. Accused No.1 filed Revision Petition No.55 of 2016 before XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi challenging the acceptance of 'B' report. In the said Revision Petition, accused file affidavit stating that the other nine accused instigated her to filed false complaint against him, hence she filed the complaint before Malmaruti Police Station as per Exhibit P1. When he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer and as an Executive Engineer in Belagavi, the accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu was working as Assistant

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Engineer (Technical) in Rural Sub-Division of HESCOM, Belagavi. At that time, other officials by name, Sriyuths Nataji P Patil, Lineman, Ajit M. Pujari, Assistant Executive Engineer, Mallasarja S. Shahapurkar, Lineman, Subhash M. Hullolli, Junior Engineer, Veerappa M Pathar and Mallikarjun S. Radihal, Overseers; B.L. Godalakundaragi, Assistant, Sri Rajendra Bhupal Haliangali, Lineman, Suresh Kamble, Accounts Officer; Irayya G. Hiremath and Maruti B. Patil, Linemen; and Smt. Drakshayini M. Nesaragi, Assistant, were working under him in HESCOM, Belagavi. Accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu was member of KEBEA and all others were members of KPTCL Employees Union. All of them were jealous about his honesty. All the accused colluded and filed false accusations against him and defamed him by making efforts to place him under suspension and to transfer him out of Belagavi, which came to his knowledge too. He has further deposed that on 02nd, 05th and 08th November, 2014 at about 6.00 pm, all the accused gathered in the parking place of HESCOM Urban Division Office at Nehru Nagar, Belagavi and filed false complaint against him and two others to the Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli. The accused No.1 has made accusations against him, stating that

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 he mentally harassed her. On 13th November 2014, all the accused conspired and created false documents, false circumstances and lodged complaint against him and two others to the Chief Minister, Home Minister, Power Minister, Deputy Commissioner, Human Rights Commission, State Women Commission, etc. and further filed false complaint against him and two others to all the higher officers of department. Again on 19th November, 2014, accused No.1, with the instigation of other accused, filed false complaint against him before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.286 of 2014. On 22nd January 2015, another complaint was filed against him before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.19 of 2015. On 29th January 2015, accused pretended to have consumed Meftal forte and spass tablets (expired/date barred) and tried to commit suicide. Accused No.1 was admitted to hospital with the help of Nataji P. Patil, Mallasarja Shahpurkar and Subhash Hullolli. In this regard, a complaint was lodged against her in Crime No.25 of 2015 for suicide attempt. On 03rd February 2015, again accused No.1, with the instigation of other accused, lodged false complaint against him before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.26 of 2015 under Section 306 and

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 511 of IPC . On 19th November, 2014, he was again arrested in Crime No.286 of 2014 and remanded to judicial custody and he was in custody from 19th to 24th November, 2014. On 03rd February 2015, Malmaruti Police arrested him and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody and therefore, he was in custody from 03rd to 11th February 2015. Resultantly, he was suspended from service as he was in judicial custody for more than 48 hours. The above news was widely published in Print and Electronic media, which act of the accused made complainant humiliated and defamed in front of his family members, relatives, friends, and general public.

48. He has stated that throughout his service, he had served the department with honesty and integrity from the cadre of Assistant Engineer to Superintendent Engineer and in the entire career of 34 years, there was no black mark. All the higher officers and the Power Department of Karnataka and Government of India has honoured him. The award booklet which is marked as Exhibit P2 contains 105 pages. The accused No.1, along with other accused, conspired each other and filed false complaint because he was not co-operating with their

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 illegal acts. The accused No.1 has also given complaint to Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli stating that he had physically and mentally harassed her. All the three cases filed by the accused No.1 were investigated by respective investigating officers and it was found that the complaints are false and baseless and in this regard 'B' reports came to be filed. The copy of First Information Report and 'B' report in Crime No.286 of 2014 is marked as Exhibits P3 & P4. The copy of First Information Report and 'B' report in Crime No.19 of 2015 are marked as Exhibits P5 & P6 and the copy of First Information Report and 'B' report in Crime No.26 of 2015 are marked as Exhibits P7 & P8. The copies and photographs appeared in electronics and print media are marked as Exhibits P9 & P10. The complainant has further deposed that accused- B.V. Sindhu filed Criminal Revision Petition No.55 of 2016 before XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi challenging the 'B' report filed by the Police before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.286 of 2014. Before the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, the accused No.1 filed affidavit stating that no such incident had taken place and at the instigation of other accused, she has lodged the complaint.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 She has also filed another Criminal Revision Petition in No.54 of 2016 with regard to Crime No.19 of 2015. In the said Revision Petition also, she has filed affidavit stating that she has lodged false complaint at the instigation of other accused. The affidavits and order sheets of Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016 are marked as Exhibits P11 & P12. Eventually, the District Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petitions on the basis of affidavits filed by accused No.1.

49. On 5th December 2014, Nataji Patil impersonated himself as Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union and had given a complaint to the Superintending Engineer, HESCOM, Belagavi with a request to dismiss the complainant and two other officials. As a result, on 10th December 2014, Superintending Engineer addressed letter-Exhibit P13 to General Manager, HESCOM, Hubli with a direction to keep him under suspension. Letter Exhibit P14 was also addressed to Managing Director, HESCOM to suspend him and two others. That on 11th December 2014, Superintending Engineer, HESCOM, Belagavi addressed letter to General Manager, HESCOM, Hubli, stating that Nataji Patil was not the Vice President at the time of writing letter and asked not to take any

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 action against him. Further, the General Secretary of KPTCL Employees Union, Bangalore, in Circular dated 15th February 2016 stated that Y.M.Nittur was the Vice President during the year 2014-2015 and not Nataji Patil. All the accused impersonated themselves as office bearers of Union to defame him by addressing false letters to his higher-ups. On 13th November 2014, accused No.1, conspired with other accused, prepared complaint and gave to Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli stating that he mentally harassed her. As a result, as per the direction of Managing Director, HESCOM, the General Manager formed Women Grievance Redressal Committee. The said Committee conducted enquiry and examined the witnesses, call details, location of mobile towers and Google map. On the basis of above evidence, on 13th November 2014, the complaint made by accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu was dismissed stating that there is no truth in the complaint. Detailed report of Women Grievance Redressal Committee and a compact disc which was given on 04th June 2015, are marked as Exhibits P15 & P16 respectively.

50. The First Information Report and 'B' report pertaining to Crime No.25 of 2015 before Malmaruti Police Station are

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 marked as Exhibits P17 & P18. He has further deposed that on 05th December 2015, Nataji Patil, even though was not the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union, lodged complaint against him before Superintending Engineer, HESCOM and requested to suspend him from service. Other accused namely, Ajit M. Pujari, Mallasarja S. Shahapurkar, B.L. Godalkundaragi, Rajendra Bhupal Haliangali, Maruti B. Patil, Mallikarjuna S. Radihal, Irayya G. Hiremath and Drakshayini M. Nesargi, have affixed their signatures to the letter which is marked as Exhibit P19 and their signatures are marked as Exhibits P19(a) to P19(g).

51. He has deposed that on 11th December 2014, the Superintending Engineer issued letter to General Manager, HRD, HESCOM, Hubli, not to consider the letter written by Nataji Patil in the capacity of Vice President. Further, he has stated that on the date of the said letter, Nataji Patil was not the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union and as on that date Y.M.Nittur was the Vice President. Those letters are marked as Exhibits P20 & P21. Accused No.1 given statement before jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to Crime No.286 of 2014 before Malmaruti Police Station. The copy of the said statement is

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 marked as Exhibit P22. The accused filed objections to criminal miscellaneous No.177 of 2015 before the Sessions Court with a request not to grant bail to him. The copy of the same is marked as Exhibit P23. On 6th March 2017, Rajashekar Iragouda Patil, the Chief Editor of 'In-Belagavi News' has given letter and DVD and the same is marked as Exhibits P24 to P26. On 12th February 2017, he has shown the scene of offence to the Investigating officer and the Investigation Officer has done panchanama in presence of panch witnesses. He has given further statement to police on 3rd April 2017.

52. He has further deposed that the Report dated 15th December, 2014 given by General Secretary, KPTCL Employees Union is marked as Exhibit P28. The letter dated 30th April, 2015 was issued by Women Grievance Redressal Committee, asking him and other two persons to appear before them on 04th May 2015. Accordingly, he appeared before the Committee on 4thMay 2015. At that time, before the enquiry room, along with the accused No.1, Nataji Patil, B.L. Godalkundaragi, Rajendra Bhupal, Maruti B. Patil, were also present and they were instigating accused No.1. On that day, the Enquiry Committee noticed these persons and recorded their attendance

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 and instigation, and called for reasons as to why they were present in front of the enquiry committee. The copy of said documents are marked as Exhibit P30. He has further deposed that he has filed two complaints against accused No.1 and other accused before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.45 & 46 of 2017, which are marked as Exhibits P31 & P32.

53. He has further deposed that accused No.1 and other accused conspired together with an intention to harass and defame him. In this regard, they have created false documents, false circumstances, false scene of offences and lodged false complaints against him. Resultantly, he was sent to judicial custody. The said news was published in print and electronic media and he was suspended for no fault of his. He has deposed that this fact was admitted by accused No.1 in Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 & 55 of 2016. That the accused instigated various associations and Women Associations to protest against him, which humiliated him and made to suffer mentally and the reputation which he earned during his entire career, went in air and hence he has lodged complaint against the accused No.1. He has further deposed that accused 2 to 13 hatching conspiracy, lodged false

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 complaint against him with an intention to cause mental torture and to ensure his suspension from service and to damage his reputation. Accused conspired on 02nd, 05th and 08th November, 2014, near parking place of Urban Division HESCOM Office, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused No.1 lodged false complaint against him and two others, viz. PW2-Maruti S Dodamani and M.T.Thakkalaki on 13th November, 2014 before Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli, alleging mental and sexual harassment committed by PW1 at KEBEA Building. In this regard, General Manager (HRD), HESCOM, Hubli constituted Women Grievance Redressal Committee to enquire into the said complaint. The Committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the complaint lodged by accused No.1 was false. The report of the enquiry Committee is marked as Exhibit P15.

54. Accused 2 to 13 forged documents against him on 5th December 2014 and submitted the same before Superintending Engineer and the Managing Director, HESCOM for taking action against him, PW2-Maruti Dodamani and M T Thakkalaki. The said letters are marked as Exhibit P14 and P19. Based on said letters, Superintending Engineer forwarded confidential letter

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Exhibit P13 to General Manager, HRD, HESCOM Hubli on 10th December 2014 for taking action against him and two others. On 11th December 2014, once again, the Superintending Engineer forwarded another letter-Exhibit P20 to General Manager, HRD, HESCOM, Hubli requesting not to consider the letter forwarded by him under Exhibit P13 stating that the signatory Nataji Patil was not the Vice President of the KPTCL Employees Union. Accused 2 to 13 had intentionally conspired against him. The department took action against all the accused for making false allegation and complaints against him and two others, and accused 1 to 10 were suspended from service. The departmental enquiry was conducted against accused No.1 and the Committee imposed the punishment of withholding increments against her. The accused No.1 during the departmental enquiry, submitted letter to the Committee stating that she lodged false complaint against him at the instigation of accused 2 to 10. Thereafter, the enquiry was also initiated against accused 2 to 10 and later they were found not guilty by the Committee. Therefore, he filed application before the Appellate Authority for de-nova Enquiry. Still the enquiry is in progress against accused 2 to 10. Accused No.1 has

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 preferred Criminal Revision Petitions No.195 and 196 of 2022 before XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi for reopening Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016. Accused No.1 has also preferred PCRs number 68, 69 & 70 of 2022 before JMFC-II Court, Belagavi against him and to reopen the 'B' report submitted by the police in Crime No.286 of 2014, 19 of 2015 and 26 of 2015 before Malmaruti Police Station.

55. The complainant has produced the entire original file pertaining to Crime No.286 of 2014 from JMFC-II Court, Belagavi which are marked as Exhibits P45, P45(a) to P45(c). Further, the entire original file pertaining to Crime No.19 of 2015 before Maalmaruti Police Station is received from JMFC-II Court, Belagavi which is marked as Exhibit P46, P46(a) and P46(b). The entire original file pertaining to Crime No.26 of 2015 before Malmaruti Police Station is received from JMFC-II Court, Belagavi and the same is marked as Exhibit P47, P47(a) and P47(b). The entire file pertaining to Crime No.25 of 2015 before Malmaruti Police Station received from JMFC-II Court, Belagavi is marked as Exhibit P48, P48(a) and P48(b). Similarly, the entire file received from XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016 are

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 marked as Exhibits P49, P50 & P50(a). He has further deposed that certified copy of departmental enquiry report of accused 1 to 10 is marked as Exhibit P51. Certified copy of Criminal Revision Petition No.196 of 2022 pending before XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is marked as Exhibit P52, certified copy of criminal revision petition No.1 of 2022 pending before XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, is marked as Exhibit P53 and the certified copy of PCR No.70 pending before JMFC-II Court, Belagavi is marked as Exhibit P54, certified copy of PCR No.69 of 2022 pending before JMFC-II Court, Belagavi is marked as Exhibit P55 and certified copy of PCR No.68 of 22 pending before JMFC-II Court, Belagavi is marked as Exhibit P56. Certified copy of show cause notice issued on 20th January 2015 along with enclosures is marked as Exhibit P57 and the certified copy of proceedings of HESCOM, Hubli dated 13th May 2015, along with enclosures, is produced as Exhibit P58.

56. CW6-Maruti S. Dodamani, who is examined as PW2, has deposed in his evidence that he knows all the accused. He has worked as Lineman in HESCOM, Belagavi. Accused No.1- B.V. Sindhu was working as Assistant Engineer. He knows the

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 complainant and the complainant was working as Executive Engineer, Rural and Urban Divisions. He has deposed that the complainant was working at Belagavi from 2001 to 2015 in different cadres and later he was transferred to Hubli. The complainant was a strict and honest officer. Accused B.V. Sindhu was Assistant Engineer in Rural sub-division. One Vinod Karur was Assistant Executive Engineer and he was the controlling officer to B.V. Sindhu. Accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu and Vinod Karur were not attending to their duty promptly. They were engaged in Union activities. PW1 being a strict officer did not tolerate their behaviour. He warned them which made them to hate him. They invited him to join them so that he will be accommodated in a good position in HESCOM Union. They also invited M.T.Thakkalaki to join them. All of them conspired together to get himself, PW1 and M.T. Thakkalaki suspended. They wrote letter to Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli stating that PW1, himself and Thakkalaki have mentally harassed B.V. Sindhu at KEBEA Building on 13th November 2014. They went to Hubli and gave complaint to the Managing Director, HESCOM and, in turn, the Managing Director ordered to form a Women Grievance Redressal Committee consisting of

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer. Enquiry was conducted in detail. They also investigated as to our mobile tower locations with regard to call details as on the date of alleged incident to B.V. Sindhu mobile phone, and found that the entire complaint was baseless and concocted and dismissed the complaint and given report to the Managing Director, which is marked as Exhibit P15.

57. He has further deposed that on 19th November 2014, accused conspiring together, went to Malmaruti Police Station and lodged complaint stating that on 13th November 2014 at Engineers Association Building, PW1 sexually harassed accused No.1. Since the said offences are non-bailable, the police arrested PW1, himself and Thakkalaki and produced before JMFC-II Court, Belagavi. The Court remanded them to judicial custody and they were in judicial custody for two days, i.e. on 23rd and 24th November, 2014. Later, they got enlarged on bail. Thereafter, other accused through accused No.1, filed Criminal Revision Petition No.81 of 2015 before District Court seeking cancellation of bail which came to be rejected. Police filed 'B' report stating that no such incident happened which was accepted by the JMFC-II Court, Belagavi. Challenging the

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 acceptance of 'B' report, again accused No.1 preferred criminal revision petition before District Court. In the said petition, she filed affidavit stating that she has filed false complaint because of instigation of other accused. Further, she admitted that no such incident had taken place and PW1 did not harass her mentally or sexually. Accordingly, the revision petition came to be dismissed. In the meantime, accused No.1 filed a complaint stating that PW1 is forcing her to withdraw complaint in Crime No.19 of 2015 filed under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code before Malmaruti Police Station. In the said crime after investigation, police filed 'B' report stating that there is no truth in the complaint. Again accused No.1 filed criminal revision petition No.54 of 2016 and in the said revision petition also, she filed affidavit stating that due to instigation of other accused, she lodged false complaint and she admitted that PW1 did not harass her mentally or physically. The said Criminal Revision petition also came to be dismissed. Accused No.1 went to Civil Hospital and admitted herself on the pretext that she attempted to commit suicide and given statement against PW1 stating that due to harassment of PW1, she tried to commit suicide. She lodged complaint against PW1 in Crime No.26 of 2015, under

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Sections 306 , 511 and 109 of Indian Penal Code. Again, PW1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and he was in custody for nine days. In the meantime, PW1 was suspended because he was in custody for more than 48 hours. In this regard, accused No.1 gave wide publicity in print and electronic media, defaming the complainant. Accused lodged complaint before Chief Minister Home Minister, Power Minister and opposition leaders. These were widely published. The image of PW1 in paper cuttings and TV footage are marked as Exhibits P9 & P10.

58. He has further deposed that during 2014-2015 Nataji Patil was not the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union. In spite of that, he has used letterhead of the Union impersonating himself as Vice President and gave complaint to Superintending Engineer and the Managing Director, HESCOM. The Superintending Engineer has written letter to General Manager, HESCOM instructing him to take action against them. Later, the Superintending Engineer written letter stating that the person who has given complaint was not the Vice President and the said letter was concocted. He has deposed that the accused concocted and created false documents and filed false

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 complaints against them to defame them stating that they have physically and mentally harassed accused No.1. PW1 was arrested and was detained in judicial custody because of false complaint made by the accused.

59. Further, he has stated that the accused had conspired and filed case in Crime No.286 of 2014, and in that case , police arrested him and after investigation, investigating officer has submitted the 'B' report. Accused No.1 questioned the same before the District Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.55 of 2016 and in that petition, accused No.1 had filed affidavit stating that on instigation of other accused, she has filed the case against them and thereafter, the revision petition came to be dismissed.

60. CW7-Antu Kamble, Superintending Engineer, Corporate Office, HESCOM Hubli, examined as PW3, has deposed in his evidence that from 21st January, 2014 to 16th September, 2015, he had worked as Superintending Engineer, HESCOM, Hubli and during his tenure at Belagavi, PW1 was working as Executive Engineer, Rural Division, Belagavi. That, Nataji Patil and others have written letter to him, stating that they are Union members

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 of KPTCL and that PW1 and others have physically harassed B.V. Sindhu and requested him to take action against them. In this regard, he addressed a letter to General Manager on 10th December 2014. On the next day, i.e. on 11th December 2014, he came to know that PW1 harassed accused No.1 on 30th November 2014 at KEBEA Building, Belagavi. On 15th November 2014, as per the directions of Managing Director, he informed the internal committee to enquire into the matter regarding complaint lodged by B.V. Sindhu. The Committee consisted of three senior officers headed by one Smt. Sudha Sail, Assistant Engineer. The said Smt. Sudha Sail came out of the Committee stating that she was not in good health. On 2nd December 2014, again he formed Committee headed by Smt. Vanishri, Assistant Executive Engineer. On 6th December 2014, the said Committee convened meeting and studied the matter elaborately, it recorded the statements of PW1-T.B. Majjagi, M.T.Thakkalaki, Maruti S. Dodamani and Karur. Accused-B.V. Sindhu did not prefer to give any statement stating that she has already filed complaint against the accused. At that time, Union approached him stating that the Head of the Committee, Smt. Vanishri was working as Assistant Executive Engineer,

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 under PW1 and therefore, she cannot give justice to B.V. Sindhu. No lady officer came forward to Head the Committee and they requested him to ask KPTCL to form the Committee. Accordingly, he wrote letter to General Manager requesting him to form a committee to enquire into the matter. On 24th February 2015, Committee was formed comprising of one Chief Engineer of BESCOM, one Superintending Engineer from Bangalore Electricity Board and another Member from HESCOM. The Committee made four sittings and conducted detailed enquiry. On 4th June 2015, Committee gave its final report stating that no such incident happened on 30th November, 2014 and complaint given by B.V. Sindhu is false. The said report is marked as Exhibit P50. Prior to that, on 6th December 2014, he issued notice to form Committee in respect of complaint made by B.V. Sindhu and they have given their reply to the said complaint which is marked as Exhibit P27. On 15th December 2014, he wrote letter to General Manager stating that no such incident happened. On 5th December 2014, Nataji Patil and others have written letter to him, stating that they are the Members of KPTCL Employees Union and they, PW1 and others, have physically harassed B.V. Sindhu and requested him to

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 take action against them. In this regard, he addressed a letter to General Manager on 10th December 2014. On the next day, i.e., on 11th December 2014, he came to know that Nataji Patil was not at all the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union and he used fake letterhead. He has deposed that he again wrote letter to General Manager stating that the said Nataji Patil was not the Vice President of the KPTCL Employees Union and asked to ignore the letter-Exhibit P14. At that time, one Y.M. Nittur was the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union, but the said Nataji Patil impersonated himself as Vice President. The Secretary of HESCOM Union issued Circular stating that since Nittur was retiring, Nataji Patil was appointed as General Secretary. When the letter was written to him on 5th December 2014, Nataji Patil was not the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union.

61. He has further deposed that on 23rd June 2015, the Committee which had given the report had asked him to send the attendance certificate of B.V. Sindhu and some other employees. He sent their attendance certificate stating that some of them were on leave, and others were on OOD. B.V. Sindhu was accompanied by Ajit M Pujari, Mallasarju

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Shahapurkar, Rajendra Haliangali, B.G. Kundargi, Hiremath M.B. Patil, Subhash Hulloli and Nataji Patil. The Court posed a question under Section 165 of Code of Criminal Procedure as to whether B.V. Sindhu was harassed by PW1. To that, his answer was 'No'. He has further deposed that on 3rd February 2015, B.V. Sindhu lodged complaint against PW1-T.B. Majjagi and he was taken into judicial custody from 03rd to 11th February 2015. Since PW1 was a Government Servant and was in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, the Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli, kept him under suspension. The said suspension order is marked as Exhibit P33. On 2nd May 2015, he received letter from Malmaruti Police Station requesting the details of the case of B.V. Sindhu and he had given the entire documents pertaining to the case, viz. the letter given to him, enquiry conducted against PW1-T.B. Majjagi and the enquiry report.

62. On 20th September 2014, B.V. Sindhu was transferred by the Chief Engineer HESCOM from Rural Division to Urban Division Belagavi. The said transfer was cancelled on 31st October 2014 by Chief Engineer as per the directions of the Managing Director. He has deposed that only the Chief

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Engineer and the officers above him, can transfer B.V. Sindhu. For this reason, B.V.Sindhu got enraged with PW1 and she was alleging that it is PW1 who got her transferred. He has deposed that PW1 was not responsible for transfer of B.V. Sindhu. PW1 was very honest and sincere officer throughout his service. Accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu, along with Ajit M Pujeri, Nataji Patil, Rajendra Haliangali, Mallikarjun Radihal, Maruti B. Patil and others created false Documents against PW1. As the said matter got published/flashed in print and electronic media continuously, it defamed the image of PW1 in general public, so also, PW1 was detained in judicial custody without any reason. In this regard, Police has recorded his statement. He has deposed that on the previous date of hearing, by mistake, he has deposed that PW1-T.B. Majjagi was not harassed by accused. It is recorded as (Counsel for accused raised objection for this question. The said objection kept open and it will be decided at the time of judgment). He has deposed in his evidence that on 5th December 2014, accused made representation to him as per Exhibit P14. The original report submitted by the Women's Grievance Redressal Committee, is at Exhibit P60.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024

63. CW4-Raju Kotre, working as Driver and CW5-Dilip Dabade, Contract worker who are examined as PWs4 and 5, have deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the Police, as per Exhibits P35 to P42.

64. CW8-Vinod Karur, Assistant Executive Engineer, KPTCL Bengaluru who is examined as PW6 has deposed in his evidence that from 2012 to 12th December 2019 he worked as Assistant Executive Engineer, HESCOM, Belagavi. During that period, accused Sindhu was working as Assistant Engineer (Technical) in their office. He also know other accused, who were all working in different capacities at different places in Rural and Urban Divisions of HESCOM, Belagavi. He also knows PW1 and at that time, he was working as an Executive Engineer, Rural Division, Belagavi, and he was his immediate superior. PW1 was a strict and honest officer and because of his strict nature, many of the employees working under him were not liking him.

65. He has deposed that on 14th November 2014, B.V. Sindhu lodged a complaint to the Managing Director stating that he called B.V. Sindhu over phone and informed her that PW1 was waiting for her in Stores to discuss regarding repair of lorry

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 belonging to HESCOM. B.V. Sindhu went to Stores where storekeeper M.T.Thakkalaki and Maruti S. Dodamani informed Sindhu that PW1 was waiting for her at KEBEA Building and B.V. Sindhu went to Association Building. There PW1 misbehaved with her and outraged her modesty. In this regard, complaint was made to Managing Director, HESCOM, wherein the Managing Director, HESCOM directed the Superintending Engineer to conduct enquiry regarding veracity of the complaint lodged by accused No.1. On 6th December 2014, the Superintending Engineer issued show cause notice Exhibit P21 to PW6-Karur, PW1-T.B. Majjagi, M.T. Thakkalaki and Maruti S. Dodamani, to which, he gave reply on the same day. In the reply, he has stated that he neither called Sindhu nor asked her to go to meet PW1 in Stores. M.T. Thakkalaki and Maruti S. Dodamani have also given their reply, stating that B.V. Sindhu did not come to Stores and they have not informed her to go to Association building. The Superintending Engineer, after going through the entire substance, given report to Managing Director as per Exhibit P21, stating that there is no truth in the complaint-Exhibit P43 given by B.V.Sindhu. Because of the false complaint, PW1 suffered insult in front of

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 his colleagues. Accused B.V. Sindhu lodged complaint before Women Grievance Redressal Committee at KPTCL, Bengaluru. All the accused along with accused No.1, went to Bengaluru to attend the enquiry. They said Committee obtained call details from the Service Provider pertaining to telephone number of PW1, himself and B.V.Sindhu and found that there were no outgoing calls to cellphone of Sindhu from his phone. In this regard, the Committee, dismissed the complaint and gave a report that the complaint was baseless. Accused No.1 lodged three false complaints against PW1 at the instigation of other accused. Accused B.V.Sindhu acted as she tried to commit suicide. Case was registered against accused B.V. Sindhu and PW1 was arrested and detained in judicial custody for nine days and he was suspended from service. Accused B.V. Sindhu filed affidavits in Criminal Revision Petitions stating that she was innocent and due to instigation of other accused, she lodged false complaints. At that time, he came to know that other accused conspired with accused No.1 and gave false complaint by creating false documents. Nataji Patil created a letterhead stating that he was Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union and addressed a letter to Superintending Engineer against PW1

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 and affixed his signature to the letter in the capacity of Vice President. At that point of time, Nataji Patil was not the Vice President of the KPTCL Employees Union and Y.M.Nittur was the Vice President. Accused Sindhu and other accused widely published this false news in print and electronic media and gave false representations to the Chief Minister, Home Minister and also given representation to local Ministers. She also created false complaint with the instigation of other accused. She also acted as trying to commit suicide. Because of the false complaint made by accused No.1, PW1-T. B. Majjagi was in judicial custody for nine days.

66. CW3 Maruti Bovi who is said to be the panch witness, examined as PW7, has deposed as to the Panchanama conducted by the police which is marked as Exhibits P59 to P68.

67. CW12 Shankarappa Mural, Director, Truth Lab, Bangalore examined as PW8 has deposed in his evidence as to the examination of admitted signature and disputed signature of accused A2-Nataji Patil, A4-Mallasarja Shahapurkar, A7- Mallikarjuna Redihal, A13-D M Nesargi, A9-Rajendra Haliangali;

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 A11-Irayya Hiremath, A3-Ajit Pujeri, A12-M B Patil. He has also deposed as to the issuance of report as per Exhibit P69.

68. CW15-Channakeshava Basappa Tengarikar and CW16- Jagadish Hanchanal, Police Inspectors, examined as PWs9 and 10 have deposed as to their respective investigation conducted by them.

69. Sri Rajashekar Patil, who is not shown as witness in the charge sheet examined as PW1, who is Editor-in-chief of News Channel Belagavi, has deposed as to the issuance of Compact disc at the request of PW1 as per Exhibit P25.

70. Sri Vijaya Dodamani, who is also not shown in the charge sheet examined as PW12, has deposed in his evidence that as per the orders of PW9, on 15th March, 2017 he has visited the Office of Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli and received six documents from Manager (Technical) and handed over the same to PW9 on the same day. The Investigating officer has seized the documents in under panchanama as per Exhibits P59 to P65.

71. Laxmipathi Hanumantharayappa, Executive Engineer, who is not shown in the charge sheet examined as PW13, has

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 deposed in his evidence that between 2014 to 2017 he was General Secretary in the KPTCL Employees Union. He has issued Exhibit P64. In the decision taken by the Central Executive Committee on 29th January, 2016 since Y M Nittur was retiring on superannuation, the Committee has appointed Nataji Patil as Vice President of the KPTCL Employees Union for the remaining period between 2014-2017, with immediate effect. He has deposed that in Exhibit P80-List of Office bearers for the period 2014-17, the name of Nataji Patil is at Sl.No.44, who is shown as General Secretary.

72. A careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, reveals that complainant PW1 has relied on the complaint filed on 19th November 2014 by accused Sindhu before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.286 of 2014 as per Exhibit P3 and after registration, investigating Officer conducted investigation and submitted 'B' report which is marked as Exhibit P4. As regards complaint filed by accused No.1 in crime No.19 of 2015 as per Exhibit P5, after completion of investigation, investigating officer had submitted 'B' report as per Exhibit P6. The copy of First Information Report and the 'B' report in crime No.26 of 2015 are marked as Exhibit P7 and P8. The affidavits

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 filed by accused B.V. Sindhu in Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016 on the file of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi are marked as Exhibits P11 & P12.

73. Nataji Patil impersonated himself as Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union and given complaint to Superintending Engineer as per Exhibit P14. PW1 filed three complaints which were merged together and common investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed against accused No.1. Thereafter, on the basis of the application filed by learned Public Prosecutor, learned Sessions Judge impleaded other accused as Accused 2 to 13 to face trial along with accused No.1 and thereafter, the trial Court convicted the accused for commission of alleged offences.

74. With regard to Exhibit P3-first information report, registered on the basis of complaint filed by accused No.1 on 13th November, 2014, Malmaruti Police have registered case in crime No.286 of 2014 against T.B. Majjagi, M.T.Thakkalaki and Maruti S Dodamani for commission of offences punishable under Section 354A , 341 , 504 , 506 , 109 and 34 Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 'B' final report as per Exhibit P4 under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the Investigating Officer has stated that as per averments made in the complaint, the evidence was not available in respect of the alleged incidents. Further, it is submitted that complainant-PW1 has also filed complaint against the accused.

75. A careful examination of the 'B' final report makes it clear that the Investigating Officer has not expressed any opinion as to the statement of the accused B.V. Sindhu, marked by prosecution as per Exhibit P22 which is recorded by the learned JMFC-II, Belagavi in Criminal Misc. No.286 of 2014, in which the accused has clearly stated as to criminal intimidation, insult and also harassment said to have been committed by the complainant-accused to PW1-T.B. Majjagi. Without expressing any opinion on this statement recorded by Magistrate under Section 164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Investigating Officer has submitted 'B' report. Investigating officer who has filed a charge-sheet against accused No.1 has not explained anything as to why the concerned Investigating officer who has filed the 'B' report as Exhibit P4, has not assigned any reasons for rejecting the testimony of the victim. Exhibit P45 which is

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 the order sheet pertaining to Crime No.286 of 2014 on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi, reveals that after submission of 'B' final report in Crime No.286 of 2014, notice was issued to the complainant and that on 31st December 2015, the counsel for the complainant prays time for objections. Then case was posted to 8th January 2016. On that day objection was filed and order was pronounced on 11th January 2016. The said Order reads as under:

76. Learned Magistrate has not passed any speaking order. He has not assigned any reason or given any opinion as to the statement of objections filed by the accused No.1. The materials placed before us reveals that PW1-T.B. Majjagi has effectively participated in the proceedings, including the proceedings in Crime No.286 of 2014. Though the Investigating officer has submitted the 'B' final report as per Exhibit P4, he has not stated anything as to column 15 of the 'B' Final report which deals with "J¥sïLDgï ¸ÀÄ½îzÀÝ°è L¦¹ 192, 211

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ GzÉÝÃ²vÀ PÀæªÀÄ (if First Information Report is false, steps taken under Sections 192 and 211 of IPC"). This column is left blank. When the Investigating officer has not taken any action under Sections, 192 & 211 of IPC against the complainant, PW1 would have taken necessary legal steps to initiate action against accused No.1 who has filed false complaint for commission of offence under Section 192 & 211 of Indian Penal Code. The investigating officer who has filed charge-sheet against accused No.1 in this case, also has not examined Sri B.R.Gaddekar, the Investigating officer who submitted the 'B' final report in crime No.286 of 2014 and has also not explained anything in this regard. Even PW1 has also not whispered anything as to not taking any legal action before the Magistrate in crime No.286 of 2014, to initiate legal action against accused No.1 for commission of offence punishable under Section 192 & 211 of Indian Penal Code.

77. The prosecution has produced Exhibit P5 copy of FIR filed by Malmaruti Police Station in which accused No.1 has lodged complaint against PW1-T.B. Majjagi for commission of offences punishable under 504 & 506 of IPC . After investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted 'B' final report

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure as per Exhibit P6 in which also the Investigating officer has not initiated any legal proceedings against accused No.1 for commission of offence punishable and Sections 192 & 211 of Indian Penal Code, though it was found that the First Information Report was false. The present Investigating Officer who has filed the charge-sheet against accused No.1, has also not offered any explanation in this regard and he has not examined Shri B.R.Gaddekar the Police Sub-Inspector of Malmaruti Police Station who has submitted 'B' final report with regard to not taking any action under Sections 192 & 211 of Indian Penal Code.

78. A perusal of Order Sheet Exhibit P46 pertaining to Crime No.19 of 2015, reveals that on 23rd November, 2015, complainant was present and sought time to file objections to 'B' Report. Then the case was posted to 26th November, 2015. On that day, case was adjourned to 02nd December, 2015. On 02nd December, 2015, application along with Memo was filed under Section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the case was adjourned to 14th December, 2015. Later, the case was posted on 21st December, 2015, 31st December 2015, 07th

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 January 2016 and on 08th January, 2016. On 08th January, 2016, Court has heard arguments and then on 11th January, 2016, the Court has passed the following order:

79. The above Order dated 11th January, 2016 is not a speaking order. Even sufficient opportunity was not provided to the complainant to file her statement of objections and 'B' report was mechanically accepted.

80. Insofar as offence under Sections 306 , 511 and 109 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the prosecution has produced Exhibit P7 copy of First Information Report registered on the basis of complaint filed by accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu against PW1-T.B. Majjagi for offence punishable under Sections 306 , 511 and 109 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted 'B' final report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure as per Exhibit P47. The main allegation of prosecution, as stated by PW1, is that the

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu has lodged complaint against PW1 upon instigation of other accused before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.26 of 2015 for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 511 of Indian Penal Code and in this case, he was arrested on 03rd February, 2015 and he was in judicial custody from 03rd to 11th February 2015. In this case also, after investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted 'B' final report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure stating that as per the decision of High Court, charge cannot be made against accused under Sections 306 and 511 of Indian Penal Code. Notice was issued to the complainant. She appeared before the Court and sought time to file objections. But the prayer was rejected on 08th January 2016 and on the same day, the learned Magistrate has passed an order that "there are no grounds to accept the contention of the complainant. Hence, 'B' report is accepted." When the complainant-B.V. Sindhu lodged a complaint, the concerned Police ought not to have registered the case against the accused-T.B. Majjagi for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 511 of Indian Penal Code which is not sustainable under law. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SATVIR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB , reported in AIR 2001 SC 2828 relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused. In the said judgment , at paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment, it is observed thus:

81. On the basis of this judgment, the learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Belagavi has granted bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No.177 of 2015 dated 11th February, 2015. On perusal of material placed before us, it is evident that the complainant-B.V. Sindhu had survived and therefore, the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code has not been completed. Since the offence has not been completed, there cannot be any abetment to commit suicide. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SATVIR SINGH is aptly applicable to the case inasmuch as offences registered are under Sections 306 , 511 and 109 of Indian Penal Code. After the Investigating Officer has submitted 'B' final report, the

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 complaint was filed by the complainant with mistaken facts. When accused B.V. Sindhu had lodged complaint against this accused, it is the duty of the concerned police to verify whether the offence under Sections 306, 511 and 109 are applicable to the case on hand as required under Section 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Unfortunately, without application of mind, concerned Police Officer has registered the case against PW1 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 , 511 and 109 of Indian Penal Code and also arrested the accused. Thereafter, he submitted 'B' final report contending that the offence under Sections 306, 511 and 109 are not maintainable in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. The conduct of Investigating Officer reveals that due to inadvertence and ignorance of proper provisions of law, the Investigating Officer has registered case against PW1 and the accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu is not responsible for registration of case against PW1. Under the given set of circumstances, we are of the considered view that all the accused are not responsible for registration of case in Crime No.26 of 2015, which ended in filing of 'B' final report. In this regard, PW1 would have taken necessary legal steps against the delinquent

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 police officer who has registered this type of case against him, instead PW1 has initiated proceedings against the accused, which is not sustainable under law.

82. On careful scrutiny of entire material on record, it is crystal clear that, on the basis of the three 'B' final reports pertaining to Crime Nos.286 of 2014, 19 of 2015 and 26 of 2015 which are accepted by the learned Magistrate, the finding given by the Women's Grievance Redressal Committee Exhibit P15 and the affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 filed by the accused No.1 before the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016, the charges are framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Mere acceptance of 'B' Final reports, will not constitute the offence under Section 192 and 211 of Indian Penal Code unless the Investigating Officer or the concerned accused have proceeded against the complainant who has filed false complaint by taking necessary legal steps as required under Sections 195 read with Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the same proceedings. The offences under Sections 192 and 211 are non-cognizable. These

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 offences are pertaining to the offences affecting the administration of justice. In such circumstance, when an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice than an enquiry has to be made into any offence referred to in clause

(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court, such court may, after such preliminary enquiry if any, as it thinks necessary -

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate;

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that court has neither made a complaint, under Sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195.

A complaint made under this section shall be signed-

(a) where the court making the complaint in a High Court, by such officer of the court a the court may appoint;

(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.

83. In the instant case, though PW1 or Investigating Officer have not filed any complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused on the police report which does not include the same as defined under Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance against the accused for the aforesaid offences as the abovesaid offences are relating to the administration of justice as defined under Chapter XXVI of Code of Criminal

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Procedure. In this regard, we also gain support from the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANTOKH SINGH and in the case of BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. PRASAD VASSUDEV KENI AND OTHERS reported in 2020(20) SCC 1 relied upon learned counsel for the appellants/accused Sriyuths Ashok R. Kalyanshetty and Neelendra R. Gunde. Keeping in mind the provision of Sections 195 and 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure and with the background of aforestated decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance against the accused for the aforesaid commission of offence which pertains to administration of justice, except on the complaint. On this count also, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court is not sustainable under law.

84. Exhibit P48 contain documents pertaining to Crime No.25 of 2015 on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi. The First Information Report produced in the said case reveals that on the basis of the complaint filed by S.Y. Sidhnal, Malmaruti Police have registered case against B.V. Sindhu for commission of offence under Section 309 Indian Penal Code and after

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted 'B' final report. Notice was issued to the complainant. Same was duly served. Complainant remained absent. Hence, the learned Magistrate has accepted the 'B' report on 18th November, 2015. In this 'B' Report also column No.15 is left blank. In this case, Court has not issued any notice to accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu. Therefore, Exhibit P48 is not at all concerned to initiate proceedings against accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu. Accordingly, Exhibit P48 will not be of any help to the case of the prosecution.

85. Exhibit P49 is the Order sheet and proceedings pertaining to Criminal Revision petition No.54 of 2016 against the order dated 11th January, 2016 passed in Crime No.19 of 2015. The same reveals that notice was issued in this case to respondent-State and to respondent No.2-T.B.Majjige in the said Revision Petition. Sri A.R. Patil, learned counsel appeared for Sri T.B. Majjagi and sought time to file objections till 19th March, 2016. On that day, again the case was posted to 13th May, 2016. In the meanwhile, accused B.V. Sindhu, filed advance application. The Court has passed order as under:

86. The copy of the Board Application filed by accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu, which is not signed by the Advocate, and the affidavit of B.V. Sindhu, are also produced.

87. Exhibit P50 is the order sheet pertaining to Criminal Revision Petitions No.55 of 2016 which is preferred against the order dated 11th January, 2016 in Summary case No.156 of 2015 by JMFC-II Court, Belagavi pertaining to Crime No.286 of 2014 filed by B.V. Sindhu, in which also Court has passed an order to issue notice to respondents 1 to 4 and after service of notice, Sri A.R. Patil, files power on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 on 19th March, 2016 and case was posted to 23rd April, 2016. Again, case was posted on 13th May 2016 and in the

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 meanwhile, i.e., on 11th May 2016, B.V. Sindhu, filed Board Application with affidavit without the signature of the Counsel. The learned Principal and Sessions Judge passed an order on 11th May, 2106, as under:

88. Exhibit P45(c) is the letter written by Superintending Engineer (E1 O & M), HESCOM, Belagavi addressed to General Manager (Admn. & HRD) Corporate Office, HESCOM, Hubli, in which the Superintending Engineer has opined that T.B. Majjagi and other Officers have not misbehaved with B.V. Sindhu, Assistant Engineer on 13th November, 2014 at KEBEA Building and also opined that no sufficient evidence in favour of B.V. Sindhu is produced/disclosed along with her representation before him so far, and the allegations made by B.V. Sindhu are totally baseless and far from truth. This decision taken by concerned authority is not a ground to file the charge sheet

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 against the accused for the alleged commission of offence. If any offence, punishable under Sections 193 to 196 , 199 , 200 , 205 to 211 and 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is said to have committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings in any Court or any lawful authority of public servants, then the concerned authority would have taken necessary legal action against the concerned complainant who has filed false complaint/affidavit, etc. under Section 195 read with Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure as the offences affect the administration of justice. The concerned Courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance for the offence under Sections 172 to 188, 193 to196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228, 471, 475 or Section 476 of Code of Criminal Procedure except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf or some other Court to which the Court is subordinate. But in the case on hand, the Superintending Engineer (E1) has not initiated any proceedings under Section 195 read with 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure against this accused. Even PW1 has not filed any application under Section 195 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 340 of Code of Civil Procedure to initiate

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 proceedings against complainant-B.V. Sindhu, for filing false complaint against PW1. Therefore, on the basis of this report Exhibit P45, the Court cannot take cognizance without the complaint being filed before the Court. In the case on hand, Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet. On the basis of the police report, the Court has taken cognizance, which is not sustainable under law.

89. Now, the question that arise for our consideration is whether affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 filed by accused No.1 before the District Court in criminal revision petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016 are sufficient to convict the accused for the alleged commission of offences against all the accused? In this regard, we have gone through the contents of affidavit-Exhibits P11 & P12. The defence set up by accused No.1 that Exhibits P11 & 12 are filed under inducement and threat and the same have not been filed on own volition. Exhibits P11 & P12 filed before the XI Additional Principal District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016, do not contain the cause-title. These affidavits are commencing as "Affidavit". In both Exhibits P11 and P12, the paragraph 1 is commencing as "£Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀ½zÀÄÝ, F

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂ¸À®Ä CºÀð½gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.". But the case number is not shown in both affidavits. In the last paragraph of both affidavits, the accused No.1 has stated that, she has voluntarily withdrawn criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016 without any pressure.

90. Every affidavit, shall set-forth the name of the Court and the cause-title of the proceedings or matter in which it is sought to be used as required under Chapter XVI of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968. The same is not complied with. Exhibits P11 & P12 reveal that both affidavits are made by deponent on 10th May 2016 before the Notary. The Notary has not mentioned the registration number of these affidavits as required under Rule 11(2) of Notaries Rules, 1956. Notarial Register maintained by the Notary in From-XV of the Notaries Rules, 1956 also not produced by the prosecution. Before receiving these affidavits on record, the learned District Judge has not enquired as to why her advocate has not filed advance application? why her advocate has filed these types of affidavits without setting forth the cause title? The accused No.1 has filed Board application on 11th May 2016 by serving copy to the respondent Counsel. The same is endorsed on board

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 application. In the board application filed by accused No.1, the concerned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the accused, has not affixed his signature. The case was posted to 13th May, 2016. On the basis of the board application filed by accused No.1 without the signature of the advocate, the learned District Judge had advanced the case from 13th May to 11th May, 2016. The Advocate for respondent No.1 also put his signature on the order sheet pertaining to Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016. On the basis of this affidavit, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, has permitted the petitioner to withdraw Criminal Revision Petitions.

91. It is to be observed that for withdrawal of criminal revision petitions filed by accused No.1, the affidavits were not required. However, the revision petitioner/accused No.1 has filed affidavits as per Exhibits P11 & P12. The copies of the affidavits also served to the other side on the same day i.e. on 11th May, 2016. The respondent/complainant PW1, has not taken legal action before the Principal District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016 on the averments made in the affidavits by the accused No.1 under Section 195 read with 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure .

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 The complainant/PW1 has lodged complaint as per Exhibit P1 on 12th June, 2017 and same was registered in Crime No.44 of 2017. Though PW1 has knowledge as to the filing affidavits before XI Additional District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016 till 12th February, 2017 i.e., for about nine months one day, he has not taken any action. In Exhibit P71 First Information Report, Column 3(c) pertaining to "Delay", in First Information Report is left blank.

92. Another complaint which is registered in Crime No.45 of 2017 on the basis of complaint filed by PW1, FIR is marked at Exhibit P72 in which the Column "Delay" has been left blank. In this regard it is relevant to mention here as to the statement of accused No.1 under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure recorded by the trial Court on 31st May, 2014 wherein, she has stated as under:

93. Accused No.1 also filed statement under Section 233(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure in which she has stated as under:

94. Along with the application, accused No.1 also produced letter issued by BSNL Authorities, Belagavi as reply to her letter dated 08th May, 2015 and the information regarding Meftal tablets generated from Google. Neither PW1 nor State made any objection to the said application.

95. The JMFC-II Court, Belagavi, has accepted the 'B' reports pertaining to Crime No.286 of 2014 and 19 of 2015 on 11th January, 2016 and the 'B' report filed pertaining to Crime No.26 of 2015 on 08th January, 2016. Even after lapse of more than a year from the date of acceptance of the 'B' report, complainant-PW1 has not lodged any complaint. The delay in filing the complaint has not been explained by PW1. Even the

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Investigating officer has not explained anything as to delay in filing the complaint. Only after filing the affidavits for withdrawal of Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 & 55 of 2016 by accused No.1, after lapse of nine months one day, the complainant PW1 has lodged complaint as per Exhibit P1. This delay in filing the complaint will create reasonable doubt as to whether accused No.1 has voluntarily filed said affidavits- Exhibits P11 & P12 or not and only at the instance of PW1, she might have filed the affidavits which are not at all required to withdraw the revision petitions. Just a memo was sufficient to withdraw revision petitions. Instead of that the accused No.1 has filed detailed affidavits, which was unnecessary. Exhibits P11 & P12 was filed on 10th May 2016, before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge.

96. Further, copy of the order dated 30th June, 2016, whereby General Manager, HESCOM suspending Shivaram Revankar, Junior Engineer working in HESCOM Belagavi is also produced. The said Shivaram Revankar is the husband of accused No.1. He was suspended due to dereliction of duty. It is also not in dispute that by that time accused No.1 was pregnant and suffering due to severe hot at Kalaburagi. It is

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 stated in the application filed under Section 233(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure that the complainant-T.B. Majjagi asked accused No.1 to withdraw Criminal Revision Petitions with a promise of getting revocation of suspension of her husband- Shivaram Revankar, as also, she be transferred from Kalaburagi to a place nearer to her native place. The copy of the order dated 02nd February, 2017 passed by Assistant Executive Engineer, Bailhongal, reveals that, Shivaram Revankar has been reinstated to his post and he has reported to duty. The copy of discharge summary produced by accused No.1 issued by Kamakshi Hospital at Kalaburagi dated 3rd October, 2016, reveals that accused No.1 was suffering from history of nine months amenorrhea. These documents and contents of the application filed under Section 233(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure reveal the possibilities of complainant-PW1 influencing accused No.1 as to revocation of suspension of her husband and she getting transferred from Kalaburagi to a place nearby to her native place and under such circumstances she might have filed affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12, though there is no need to file any affidavit to withdraw a criminal revision petition.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024

97. Accused No.1 produced certified copy of order sheet pertaining to PCR No.68 of 2022 marked as Exhibit D16, which reveals that the same is filed seeking to recall the order of acceptance of 'B' report filed by Malmaruti Police, Belagavi and to maintain complaint filed by accused No.1. The said statement of accused No.1 recorded in PCR No.68 of 22 is marked at Exhibit D17. The statement of one Sunil B.Venkatesh examined as DW2, is marked Exhibit D18. Sworn statement of Smt. Drakshayini N Nesargi examined as DW3, is marked as Exhibit D19. Copy of sworn statement of PW2-Amit Pujari is marked as Exhibit D20, and the Sworn statement of Shekhar Dayanand Kamble, is marked as Exhibit D21. Copy of the complaint is marked at Exhibit D22.

98. Copy of the order sheet pertaining to Original Suit No.1 of 2023 filed by B.V. Sindhu against PWs.1, 3 & 6 is produced. The same is filed seeking:

up on whiter paper claiming to be an affidavit of the plaintiff before the notary Shri Shripad kallimani of Belagavi has been obtained by the defendants No. 1 to 4 collusively by practicing fraud and misrepresentation of

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 the plaintiff and also on the Notary, and hence, is fraudulent void ab-initio.

B) To declare that the facts and statements computer typed in the alleged affidavit are false, concocted and are not deposed by the plaintiff on oath and are not verified before the Notary and it is the resultant outcome of trickery and cheating by the defendants to enable the defendant No.1 to initiate criminal proceedings thereafter.

C)To declare that the defendants No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable for the damages resulting from their common object of bringing the false affidavit and its false contents fraudulently in existence for its illegal operations for hatching further criminal proceeding against plaintiff.

D) To award damages and compensation payable jointly and severally on the following Head of Claim.

i) Towards mental agony, pain and physical suffering in her regular routine life, causing set- back in rendering the happy routine service as public servant in the office and also as family member - Rs.2,00,000/-

ii) Towards court fees, legal fees for defending the cases of malicious prosecution by the defendants No.1 Rs 2,00,000/-

iii) Towards the personal expenses Court and also in the II J.M.F.C Court Belagavi. Rs.1,50,000/-

iv) Loss of Leave, Loss of work Promotion and Loss of Timely Increments stopped by her Employer caused for her repeated absence from

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 the duties of an Assistant Engineer in CESCOM Mysuru,Rs.50,000/-

v) operating the impugned Affidavit dated 10-03- 2016 manipulated before Shri Shripad Kallimani, Notary Belagavi in the collateral proceedings. E) Cost of the suit and any other relief as deemed fit and proper by the Hon'ble Court be awarded."

99. The suit was filed on 02nd January 2023 and order sheet reveals that case was posted on 25th November, 2023. Copy of the complaint pertaining to Original Suit No.1 of 2023, verifying affidavit list of documents are also produced. Statement of objections of the plaintiff to the interim application filed by D1-T.B. Majjagi, copy of the notice issued to Smt. Mandakini Appugol, Advocate, who is the relative of T.B. Majjagi; notice issued to Sri Manjunath Yelaburgi and the copy of reply received from Sri Manjunath Yelagurgi, Advocate; and the copy of legal notice to Sri Kalakappa Soodi, are all produced.

100. Copy of order sheet pertaining to PCR No.77 of 2022 pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi Court Exhibit D24 to take cognizance against T.B. Majjagi and copy of complaint filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against T.B. Majjagi and others, Copy of the endorsement issued by the concerned police Exhibit D25, copy of the complaint filed by

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 T.B. Majjagi and others against B.V. Sindhu and others for the offence punishable under Sections 494 , 500 and 149 Indian Penal Code, deposition copy of T.B. Majjagi in CC No.803 of 2017 and copy of PCR No.88 of 2017, order sheet pertaining to CC No.803 of 2017 and other Exhibits, are produced.

101. We have also perused Exhibit P81 contempt petition filed against accused No.1 in CCC No.100002 of 2023 and Exhibit P52 the Criminal Revision Petition No.196 of 2022 filed by accused No.1, Exhibit P53 copy of criminal revision petition No.195 of 2022, Exhibit P54 document pertaining to PCR No.70 of 2022 filed by accused No.1, Exhibit P55 document pertaining to PCR No.69 of 2022, Exhibit P56 document pertaining to PCR No.68 of 2022 filed by accused No.1. A careful scrutiny of the documents filed by both the parties as well as the complaints filed by Accused No.1 in crime No.286 of 2014, 19 of 2015 and 26 of 2015 reveals that still the Accused No.1-B. V. Sindhu is questioning the cancellation of affidavits filed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024

102. For the aforesaid reasons, it appears that, the said affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12 are filed by accused No.1 under inducement and promise made by the PW1 and the same is not admissible under Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act. The conduct of parties, mode of filing advance application before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge Court without identification by concerned advocate and the affidavits filed without setting forth the cause-title, the statement of objections filed by accused No.1 against 'B' final reports by the concerned Investigating officer and revocation of suspension of Shivaram Revankar husband of accused No.1 and the transfer of accused No.1 from Gulbarga to a place nearer to her native place, delay in filing the complaint by PW1, that too only after filing of the affidavits by the accused No.1 before the revision Court as per Exhibits P11 and P12 after lapse of nine months one day, will create reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of accused No.1 in filing affidavits, Exhibits P11 & P12. No prudent person will file these types of affidavits which are not required to withdraw the revision petitions. Accused No.1, being an educated lady, being fed up with the suspension of her husband and so also of her transfer to Gulbarga and with regard to filing of 'B' reports

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 by the jurisdictional police, and also with an intention to settle the issue, might have filed affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12. Taking advantage of these affidavits, after lapse of more than nine months one day after disposal of criminal revision petitions, PW1 has lodged complaint without explaining the delay in filing the complaint.

103. After filing these affidavits before the Revision Court, the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his judicious mind in examining the contents/averments of affidavit. Without application of mind, on the basis of affidavits, the Revisional Court has permitted the accused No.1 to withdraw criminal revision petitions. When the accused No.1 has not been represented by her Counsel, at least the Revisional Court could have explained the consequences of filing these types of affidavits and could have insisted the Revision Petitioner to keep the presence of counsel to ascertain that averments made in the affidavits is on own volition or under inducement/threat/duress. Additionally, Exhibits P11 and P12 are not identified by the advocate who has appeared on behalf of revision petitioner.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024

104. The investigating officer has not investigated and examined as to under what circumstance the accused No.1 has filed affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12 before the revision Court. Why the advocate for accused No.1 has not moved the Board application; why the advocate for accused No.1 has not identified the signature of accused No.1 on Exhibits P11 and P12; who has prepared and at whose instance these affidavits have been prepared; whether the Notary who has given oath to the deponent has read over and explained the averments made in the affidavit to the deponent; why these affidavits were filed without setting forth the cause-title; after filing of affidavits, why PW1 has not initiated any legal action against accused No.1 before the Revisional Court as the accused No.1 has confessed with respect to filing multiple complaints by her on different dates?

105. In view of Section 4 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all the offence under the Indian Penal Code 1860 (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and in view of sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of Code of Criminal Procedure, all offences under any other law shall be

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 investigated, enquired into, tried otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force, regulating the matter or place of investigating, enquiring into, trying or otherwise dealt with such offence. In the case on hand, the Investigating officer has not investigated the matter in detail. Neither PW1, nor the investigating officer has deposed as to the aforesaid lapses. In addition to this, the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating officer reveals that he has not arrested accused No.1. He has not even issued notice as required under Section 41(A) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 to interrogate the accused No.1. Why the Investigating officer has not arrested accused No.1 for interrogation and why the investigating officer has not examined advocate who identified the deponent, who affixed her signature on Exhibits P11 and P12, why the investigating officer has not examined the notary who has given oath to the accused No.1, under which circumstance the accused No.1 has filed these affidavits, reasons for filing these affidavits before the revision Court though these type of affidavits were not required for withdrawal of revision petitions, all these aspects have not been explained by the investigating

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 officer. Without assigning any reasons, without taking any legal steps to arrest her, the Investigating officer has simply sought for issuance of warrant to accused No.1. Had the Investigating officer interrogated the accused and collected the information as to under what circumstance she has filed these types of affidavits, then the accused No.1 would have explained as to the compelling circumstances to file these affidavits before the revision Court and then the investigating officer would have got to know the truth behind filing these affidavits. Without conducting proper investigation, without examining accused No.1, without examining necessary material witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused, without ascertaining the fact as to whether accused No.1 has voluntarily, so also, being aware of the legal consequences of filing these type of affidavits, filed such affidavits before the Court. The Investigating officer has filed charge-sheet against accused No.1 only on the basis of affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12 without proper investigation, which is not sustainable in law.

106. It is an admitted fact that the investigating officer has submitted the charge-sheet dated 12th February, 2017 in crime No.44, 45 and 46 of 2017, only against accused no.1. In the

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 charge sheets in these crimes, Column 13, specifically reveals that, except accused No.1, other accused Nataji Peeraji Patil, Ajit Mayappa Pujari, Mallasarja Shivarai Shapurakar, Subhash Mallappa Hullolli, Irappa Mahadev Pattar, Mallikarjun Sangappa Radiyal, Bheemappa Lenkappa Godalkundaragi, Rajendra Bhupal Halingali and Suresh Kallappa Kamble are not charge- sheeted. Why the names of these accused were given up in the charge-sheet, has not been explained. After filing of charge- sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the case was registered in CC No.256 of 2019 against accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu. The case was registered on 16th April 2014 and summons was issued to accused No.1 and she appeared through her Counsel on 29th April 2019 by filing application and Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure. On the same day T.B. Majjagi-PW1 has appeared through his Counsel by filing application under Section 301(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure to allow the Counsel of complainant to assist the prosecution. The same was allowed by JMFC-II Court, Belagavi on the same day i.e. 29th April 2019. Though the PW1 had appeared before JMFC-II Court, Belagavi before committal of this case, he has not filed any objection as to dropping of accused 2 to 10 from

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 the charge-sheet. After committal, case was registered in SC No.262 of 2019 on 19th August, 2019. Even prosecution has not filed any application to implead accused 2 to 13 before framing of charges. However, after framing of charges and examination of PW1 & PW2, prosecution has filed application under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by the trial Court permitting to array them as accused 2 to 13 to face trial along with accused No.1 and thereafter, additional charges against accused No.1 and charges against other accused were framed and read over and explained to them. PW1 has not whispered anything in his evidence as to why he has not filed any objection for dropping accused 2 to 10 in the charge-sheet. He has not taken any legal steps before the committal Court. Even after committal, till recording the evidence of PW1 and PW2, in part, the prosecution has not taken any steps to file application under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution has filed application under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure to implead other accused. In Exhibit P1-complaint, the PW1 has shown only accused 1 to 10. He has not shown the name of other two accused namely A5 and A10. Why the

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 other accused are not shown in the complaint who are shown in the impleading applications under Section 319 of CRPC, has not been explained by the prosecution.

107. It is the case of the prosecution that accused 2 to 13, being the members of KPTCL Employees Union (659), in collusion with accused No.1, who was then working as Assistant Engineer (Technical), being enraged by PW1-T.B. Majjagi had transferred accused No.1 from Rural Sub-Division (IO & M), Belagavi, 02nd, 05th and 08th November, 2014, at 6.00 pm in the parking place of HESCOM Office, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi, entered into criminal conspiracy against PW1 to procure conviction for offence punishable with imprisonment for life and on the same day, in collusion with other accused, had filed false complaint against PW1 before the superiors stating that he had mentally harassed accused No.1 and created letter dated 05th December, 2014 in the name of KPTCL Employees Union (659), HESCOM, Hubli, with an intention to procure conviction for imprisonment of life, the accused 2 to 13 in collusion with accused No.1, in prosecution of above common object, in the name of KPTCL Employees Union (659) HESCOM, Hubli fabricated and caused registration of false cases against PW1 in

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.286 of 2014, 19 of 2015 and 26 of 2015 as admitted by accused No.1 in her affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 filed in Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016 on the file of Court of Sessions, and by instituting such criminal revision petitions against PW1, CW6 and deceased M T Thakkalaki with an intention to tarnish their reputation in the society and further on the abovesaid date, place and time, the accused in collusion with accused No.1 in prosecution of above with common object, committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. To substantiate the same, the prosecution has adduced oral evidence and also produced document Exhibit P28 Official Memorandum issued on 05th February, 2016 by the General Secretary, KPTCL Employees Union stating that Y.M. Nittur was Vice-President of KPTCL Employees Union and Nataji Patil was not holding the post of Vice-President as on 05th December, 2014 and Show-cause notice Exhibit P29 issued by CEE to PW1 dated 20th January, 2015, and Exhibit P30 e-Mail from Women Grievance Redressal Committee dated 13th May, 2015 regarding enquiry of HESCOM, where some of the other accused were present along with

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 accused No.1 at the time of enquiry on 05th April, 2015 and unnecessary involvement of others in enquiry and their attendance was sought by the Enquiry Officer. Exhibits P4, P6 and P8 are 'B' reports in Crime No.286/2014, 19/2015 and 26/2015 respectively. Exhibit P59-Letter dated: 05.12.2014 of Nataji Patil impersonating himself has Vice-President of KPTCL Employees Union, HESCOM, Hubli and others addressing letter to SEE, HESCOM, Hubli to take action on PW1, PW2 and another; Exhibit P60-Women's Grievance Redressal Committee Report (Original copy), Exhibit P61- Letter dated: 05.12.2014 of Nataji Patil impersonating himself has Vice-President of KPTCL Employees Union, HESCOM, Hubli and other accused addressed to Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli to take action on PWs1 and 2 and another; Exhibit P62-Confidential Letter dated:

Letter dated: 11.12.2024 by SEE to GM, HESCOM with regard to non-consideration of his previous Confidential Letter dated:

President of Union on 05.12.2014; Exhibit P64-Official Memorandum issued on 15.02.2016 by General Secretary,

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 KPTCL Employees Union regarding Y.M. Nittur was the Vice- President of the Union and Nataji Patil was not holding post of Vice-President as on 05.12.2014 and Exhibit P65-Documents in respect of letter dated 05.12.2014 of Nataji Patil impersonating himself as Vice-President of KPTCL Employees Union, HESCOM, Hubli and other accused addressing letter to MD, HESCOM, Hubli to take action on PWs1, 2 and another.

108. On the contrary, the accused have produced Exhibit D32 letter of KPTCL Association (659) Bengaluru. The same is the letter issued by the President, KPTCL Employees Association (659), Bangalore-560009, which reads as under:

109. The said letter is dated 09th October, 2014 vide No. ka.vi.pra.ni.nou.sa.529/2014-15. To substantiate this, DW1-M. Nagaraj, who has issued this Exhibit P32, is also examined who has deposed in his evidence as to the issuance of Official Memorandum, Exhibit D32.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024

110. Accused No.2-Nataji P Patil, has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that on 05th December, 2015 he was the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union. He has also filed detailed statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which it is stated as under:

111. He has also produced documents along with his statement of objections. Exhibit P19 is the requisition submitted by Nataji P Patel to the Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli to suspend the officer/employee who has attempted to outrage

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 the modesty of the woman in the Department. Exhibit P28 is the official memorandum issued by General Secretary, KPTCL Employees Union (659), Bangalore, in which it is stated as under:

112. The prosecution has relied upon Exhibit P28, which, according to PW1, was issued by one Lakshmipathi. The said Lakshmipathi has been examined as PW33. However, a perusal of his deposition reveals that he has not deposed anything regarding the issuance of Exhibit P28. Instead, he has referred to Exhibit P64 in his evidence. Notably, both Exhibits P28 and P64 refer to the same document. Furthermore, Exhibit P80 contains the list of Central Executive Committee (CEC) Members of the KPTCL Employees Union for the term 2014- 2017. At Sl.Nos.17 to 24, individuals such as Umeshappa K.S., Banakar G.H., Revanasiddappa Hagaragi, Prabhakar A.M., Y.M. Nittur, V.M. Mudukannanavar, Umesh A., and Sridhar H.L. are named as Vice Presidents representing BESCOM, CESC,

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 GESCOM, Ballari, HESCOM, and MESCOM, respectively. At serial number 44, the name of Nataji Patil appears as the Organising Secretary of the Belagavi Circle. During cross-examination, PW1 has categorically admitted that, under the by-laws of the Association, each company is required to have a President and that the President is vested with the authority to appoint Vice Presidents.

113. DW1-M. Nagaraju, who served as the Executive President of the KPTCL Employees Union between 2011-2016, has clearly deposed that Accused No.2 held the post of Vice President since 2014. His oral testimony and the contents of Exhibit D32 directly contradict the documents relied upon by the prosecution, namely Exhibits P14 and P28. Further, PW13 Lakshmipathi, who served as the General Secretary, has admitted that the President was empowered to appoint Vice Presidents. In line with this authority, DW1 has issued the official memorandum marked as Exhibit P32. The prosecution has not produced any credible material to discredit either the contents of Exhibit P32 or the evidence of DW1. In light of the documentary evidence demonstrating that Accused No.2 was indeed the Vice President of the KPTCL Employees Union at the

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 relevant time, the prosecution's allegation of impersonation, forgery, or misrepresentation loses all foundation.

114. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Accused No.2 was not the Vice President at the relevant time, PW1 has admitted in his evidence that Accused No.2 held the position of Organising Secretary. It is well established that even an Organising Secretary is competent to make representations on behalf of any member or employee of the Association. There exists no bar preventing such a person from initiating a representation, particularly in defense of another member allegedly subjected to departmental injustice. Moreover, PW1 has admitted that despite the complaint by Accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu, he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer, received timely increments, and continues to draw pensionary benefits. His arrears were also cleared. PW1 further admitted that Accused No.1 did not instruct him to take action on the basis of Exhibit P9 and that Exhibits P14 and P19 do not mention the names of all the accused. He categorically stated that Accused No.1 did not instruct the preparation of those documents, nor did she identify Accused 2 to 13 in her complaints. According to testimony of PW1, he only suspected

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 a conspiracy involving Accused 2 to 13 after reading the affidavits filed by Accused No.1. He also conceded that Accused 2 to 13 were stationed in different locations and that the names of Accused Nos.5 and 10 are absent in Exhibit P14, while Accused No.6 was not a signatory to Exhibits P14 or P19. Similarly, the name of accused No.8 name does not appear in the photocopy of Exhibit P9. Despite the lack of substantive evidence, the prosecution moved an application to implead these persons as accused, which lacks legal justification.

115. A close examination of the materials on record clearly reveals that the charges framed against the accused under Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 149 of the IPC were primarily based on three 'B' Final Reports in Crime Nos. 286 of 2014, 19 of 2015, and 26 of 2015, which were accepted by the learned Magistrate. The prosecution has also relied on Exhibit P15, the report of the Women Grievance Redressal Committee, and affidavits marked as Exhibits P11 and P12, filed by Accused No.1 before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016. However, these documents do

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 not independently establish the conspiracy alleged against Accused 2 to 13.

116. Given that accused 2 to 13 were employees of KPTCL posted in different locations, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish how all these individuals came together, at a specific time, place and date, to hatch a conspiracy against PW1 and others. The prosecution has failed to provide any material explanation or evidence in this regard. After a thorough and critical evaluation of the evidence on record, there is a glaring absence of cogent, consistent, and legally admissible evidence to substantiate the charges under Sections 195 , 211 , 420 , 467 , 468 , and 120B of the IPC. The Trial Court has not evaluated the evidence in its proper legal context and has committed a grave error in its appreciation of the material facts and law applicable to the case.

117. The learned counsel for the accused has further substantiated his defense by producing documents that cast serious doubt on the credibility of PW1. It has been demonstrated that PW1 was not only a dominant official but also held the post of President of the KPTCL Employees Union.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 He was the controlling authority over Accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu. It is brought on record that other employees, namely Smt. Sudha and Smt. Renuka Shashikant Appugol, had also filed complaints against PW1 alleging sexual and mental harassment. Crime No.209/2010 was registered under Sections 506 and 509 IPC in this regard, which ended in a 'B' report. The defense has also produced Exhibits D1 to D36, including Exhibit D7-complaint filed by Suresh Kallappa Kamble against PW1, resulting in registration of Crime No.193/2010 under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Though a 'B' report was filed (Exhibit P8), the complainant protested the same and submitted a sworn statement (Exhibit D9). Supporting documents such as wound certificates, mahazars, witness statements, and the order sheet in Crime No.193 of 2010 (Exhibit D10) show that PW1 had obtained anticipatory bail from the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi. The order in Summary Case No.7 of 2011 directed registration of First Information Report against PW1 for offences under Sections 323 , 504 , and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Additionally, Exhibits D12, D13, and D15 are media publications alleging that PW1

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 misappropriated Rs.66.00 lakh from HESCOM, Belagavi. While we do not render any findings on these allegations at this stage, they bear relevance to the question of the credibility and motive of PW1.

118. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced is neither consistent nor sufficient to support a finding of criminal conspiracy or forgery, as alleged. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative, holding that the accused are entitled to be acquitted of all charges leveled against them.

Regarding Points 2 & 3:

119. While answering Point No.1 above, as we have held that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused for the alleged commission of offences, the question of enhancing the sentence as sought for by the State as well as by the Revision Petitioner who is complainant-PW1, does not arise. Hence, we answer Points 2 and 3 in the negative.

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 Regarding Point No.4:

120. For discussions and reasons aforestated, we proceed to pass the following:

C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024, CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024, CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024, CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code;

5. The fine amount if any deposited by the accused, shall be refunded to them in accordance with law;

6. Registry to transmit the trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment to the concerned Court forthwith.

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT-CMU