IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.964/2018 BETWEEN:
Sri. Rangaswamy, S/o Late Lakkappa, Aged about 52 years, R/o Koregere, Yalanadu Post, Huliya Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkuru District.
(By Smt. Manjula D, Advocate and Smt. K.P. Roopa, Adovcate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Huliyar Police Station, Tumkuru District, Represented by its SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri. S.T. Naik, HCGP) ...Petitioner ... Respondent This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the dismissal order dated 09.06.2017 which is produced as Annexure –C passed in C.C. No.443/2015 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkanayakanahalli and to discharge the petitioner in Crime No.18/2015, Huliyar Police Station, Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkuru for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkuru District in C.C. No.443/2015, whereunder the discharge application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was registered against accused Nos.1 to 6. This Court by order dated 29.02.2016 in Crl. P. No.6621/2015 has discharged accused Nos.2 to 6 holding that there is no prima-facie material as against them. Under the similar facts and circumstances, the Court below ought to have discharge the petitioner/accused No.1 since the provisions of Section 34 have also been included in charge. It is further submitted that the petitioner resigned from the post of President of Koreger Temple Committee that itself clearly go to show that there is no such alleged incident has taken place as contended by the complainant and it is not possible for the petitioner/accused alone to commit the alleged offence as contended by the complainant and her husband. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the trial Court and has not discharged the petitioner/accused No.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner being the victim of jealous of the complainant in performing the pooja of the said temple, such frivolous complaint has been registered against the petitioner/accused. It is further submitted that the police have submitted ‘B’ report in respect of the complaint. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the trial Court. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the order dated 09.06.2017.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused including accused Nos.2 to 6 approached this Court in Crl.P. No.6621/2015 and therein, this Court has already observed that there is a prima-facie material as against the petitioner/accused No.1 and discharged as against accused Nos.2 to 6 holding that absolutely no allegations have been made out in the complaint. Now, at this juncture, the accused petitioner cannot contend that there is no material to frame the charges and allow the petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP.
6. It is not in dispute that petitioner/accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 6 approached this Court in Crl.P. No.6621/2015 and this Court by order dated 29.02.2016, allowed the petition partly and discharged accused Nos.2 to 6 and in so far as petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, the petition came to be rejected.
7. This Court taking into consideration of all the facts and material placed, has come to the conclusion that there is no absolute allegation made against accused Nos.2 to 6 in the complaint filed by Smt. Parvathamma and accordingly, they have been discharged by allowing the petition. But in so far as the petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, it has come to the conclusion that there is some material as against the petitioner/accused No.1 and the said petition came to be rejected. Already this Court has taken a view that there is material as against accused No.1 and has dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 now, it cannot be contended that there is no material as against the petitioner/accused No.1 and he is entitled to be discharge from the said charges.
8. As could be seen from the order of the trial Court, the similar observation has also been made and after considering the material placed on record, it has come to the conclusion that there is material as against the petitioner/accused to frame the charges and has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.
9. It is well settled principle of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court that by considering the material placed before the Court, if Court comes to the conclusion that even in spite of proving the same facts, if the accused is not going to be convicted, under such circumstance, Court can discharge the accused and it is not necessary to frame the charges. If there is no grave suspicion Court can frame charge. But in the instant case on hand, already this Court in the above said criminal petition has come to the conclusion that there is material and now this Court cannot give a contradictory view by stating that there is no material and there is a case of discharge. Looking from any angle, petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The revision petition being devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
VBS Sd/- JUDGE