IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1465/2016 BETWEEN:
1. Divakara N J S/o Janardhanaiah Aged about 33 years, R/o House No.436, EWS, 12th Cross, Kuvempunagar, Hassan - 573 201.
2. Ranganatha S/o Janardhanaiah Aged about 35 years, R/o House No.436, EWS, 12th Cross, Kuvempunagar, Hassan - 573 201.
3. Janardhanaiah S/o Rangaiah Aged about 67 years, R/o House No.436, EWS, 12th Cross, Kuvempunagar, Hassan - 573 201.
4. Yashodamma W/o Janardhanaiah Aged about 53 years, R/o House No.436, EWS, 12th Cross, Kuvempunagar, Hassan - 573 201.
(By Sri Rahul Rai.K., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka Through Hassan Extension Police Station, Hassan, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. B.C.Anitha, W/o Sri. Ranganath Aged about 30 years, R/at No.436, 12th Cross, Kuvempunagar Extension, Hassan City – 573201.
(By Sri. S.T. Naik, HCGP for R1;
...Petitioners ... Respondents Sri V.N.Madhava Reddy, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in S.C.No.255/2013, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for discharge for the offence P/U/S 307, 506, 114 R/W 34 of IPC and discharge the petitioners for the offence P/U/S 307, 506, 114 r/w 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4, being aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Hassan in S.C.No.255/2013, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge them from the offences leveled against them.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and also the learned counsel for respondent No.2, original complainant.
3. Though this petition is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
4. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that on 19.12.2011 at about 10.30 a.m. accused No.1 attempted to commit murder by dashing his motorbike to the complainant in front of her house. It is further alleged that accused Nos.2 to 4 are the parents of accused No.1 who have instigated and abetted accused No.1 and further stated that for the alleged offences a case was registered in Crime No.365/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 307, 506 , 114 read with 34 of IPC.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused that earlier a complaint has been filed on 22.12.2011. Though the alleged incident has taken place on 19.12.2011, there is no reference to the alleged crime. He further submitted that if the alleged incident has taken place as contended, definitely it could have been mentioned in the compliant filed on 22.12.2011. He further submitted that accused Nos.2 to 4 were not present at the time when the alleged incident has taken place and there is no question of abetting accused No.1 to commit the alleged offence. He further submitted that the trial Court without considering the said material has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly dismissed the petition. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the revision petition and to set aside the impugned order.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the application is not maintainable as there is prima-facie material to show that the accused persons have tried to take away her life by dashing the motorbike. He further submitted that there is ample material to show that accused Nos.2 to 4 have instigated accused No.1 to commit the alleged offence. The petitioners/accused have not made out any good ground to discharge them from the charges leveled against them. The charge sheet clearly goes to show that there is prima-facie material as against the petitioners/accused for the alleged offences. At this stage, it is premature to come to a conclusion that the accused have not committed any offence. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent No.2, supporting the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader, further submitted that accused No.1 being the husband of the complainant has ill-treated and harassed her and thereafter, intended to take away the life of complainant by dashing the motorbike and there is prima-facie material to frame the charges. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
9. Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is well settled principle of law that while considering the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to consider the fact whether there is prima-facie material for framing the charges. The Judge has to consider judicially whether on consideration of the material on records, it can be said that the accused have been reasonably connected with the offences and that there is probability of accused being found guilty. If the answer is in the affirmative, the Court can go on with the framing of charge. It is also further well established principle of law that if a strong suspicion is created, the Court cannot say that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused. Keeping in view the above said proposition of law, it is essential to consider whether prima-facie material is laid before the Court for framing of the charge in this behalf.
10. As could be seen from the investigation report and the material made available, there is direct allegation as against accused No.1 to show that he tried to make an accident to the complainant so as to take away the life of the complainant and hence, the case has been registered in this behalf. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused that in the earlier complainant filed on 22.12.2011, there is no reference about the incident which has taken place on 19.12.2011, that is a matter which has to be adjudicated only at the time of trial. The said incidents have taken place at different places and at different time and the alleged offences are also different. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that a frivolous compliant is filed by the complainant only with an intention to harass the accused persons. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that accused Nos.2 to 4 have conspired with each other and instigated accused No.1 to commit the alleged offence.
Under the said facts and circumstances, it is a fit case to frame the charge and it is not a fit case to discharge at this stage.
11. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioners/accused have not made out any good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. The revision petition being devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
Registry is directed to return the records forthwith.
In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE GJM