IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.643 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JEEVAN BHEEMA POLICE, BENGALURU – 560 038. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI THEJESH.P., HCGP) AND:
MANJUNATHA R.BHAGWATH, S/O LATE G.BHAGWATH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.D6, 14SFS, 407, NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM.M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISCHARGE IN S.C.NO.1364/2014 PASSED BY XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BENGALURU (CCH-46) DATED 21.12.2015 WITH RESPECT TO RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.2 AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BENGALURU (CCH-46) TO PROCEED FURTHER AGAINST RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.2.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though this criminal revision petition is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned HCGP appearing for the Petitioner/State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused No.2, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard the learned HCGP appearing for the Petitioner/State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused No.2.
3. The factual matrix of this petition are as under:
The respondent herein, namely, Manjunatha.R. Bhagwath who said to be arraigned as accused No.2 in S.C.No.1364/2014 had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge from the case for the offences leveled against him under Sections 313, 498(A), 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is stated in the application that the complainant who is said to be the wife of accused No.1 who is none other than the son of accused No.2, had lodged a complaint on allegations of dowry harassment, mental and physical harassment and the accused have caused miscarriage without her consent on 11.01.2010 at Sirsi and on 30.09.2011 at Yogananda Hospital, Bengaluru. The prosecution has not placed any relevant documents relating to involvement of committing such an offence and so also has not secured any material evidence against accused No.2, in respect of the said allegations. Further, there is no prima-facie material against the respondent herein. The statement of CWs-2, 3, 4 and 9 who are the mother, father, friend and the doctor who treated the complainant clearly shows that CW-1/complainant herself has taken tablets from CW- 9/Doctor after getting treatment from her clinic itself. The allegation made in respect of initiation of complaint and recording of FIR by the Police with regard to causing of miscarriage without the consent of the complainant is not specifically made out in the charge-sheet laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused/respondent herein. In respect of causing miscarriage at Yogananda Hospital at Bengaluru and in pursuance of the complaint, FIR came to be registered. The Investigating Officer has investigated the matter and laid the charge-sheet against the accused in S.C.No.1364/2014.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for the Petitioner/ State took me through the averments made in the complaint filed by CW-1 who is the complainant. Based on her complaint, J.B.Nagar Police Station registered the case against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.264/2012 for the offence under Sections 313, 498(A), 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Subsequent to thorough investigation done by the Investigating Officer has laid the charge- sheet for the aforesaid offences arraigning the respondent herein as accused No.2 and his son as accused No.1. On an application being filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court in S.C.No.1364/2014, the Sessions Court allowed the application in part, discharging accused No.2 from the offences punishable under Sections 313, 498(A) and 506 of IPC whereas the Trial Court did not appreciate the material evidence secured by the I.O. against the accused, specifically against accused No.2 who has forcibly administered the tablets to the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order of the Trial Court has to be interfered with, by this Court and sought to allow the criminal revision petition by remanding the matter back to the Sessions Court to proceed further against accused No.2 for the offence under Sections 498- A and 506 of IPC.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent/accused No.2 advanced his counter arguments. He contended that during the course of the investigation, the I.O. has recorded the statements of CWs-2, 3, 4 and 9 whereas CW-9 has abundantly made it clear that there is no role played by accused No.2 in causing miscarriage without the consent of CW-1. Further, he contended that the document placed by the Doctor – CW-9 clearly shows that CW-1 herself has taken tablets from her after getting treatment at the clinic of CW-9 itself. Therefore, the allegation made against accused No.2 does not substantiate to persuade the matter in order to face trial by the accused No.2 for the offences under Sections 313, 498A and 506 of IPC. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the I.O. has not secured any material documents in order to laid the charge-sheet arraigning the respondent herein as accused No.2., which requires a full-fledged trial and prays to dismiss the criminal revision petition preferred by the State against accused No.2.
6. On hearing both sides, it is relevant to state that based upon the complaint filed by the victim woman, crime was registered for the alleged offences. Subsequent to investigation, the I.O. has laid the charge- sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2. Subsequently, on an application being filed by accused Nos.1 and 2, charges leveled against accused No.2 was discharged by the Sessions Court by its order dated 21.12.2015. The prosecution has set up a theory that accused No.2 was involved with accused No.1 to administer tablets to the victim woman to get her pregnancy terminated. The allegation regarding 313 of IPC is made against only accused No.1 who is the husband of CW-1. The allegation is that accused No.1 has subjected CW-1 to physical and mental torture and has threatened her to take away her life. Respondent herein is none other than the father-in-law of CW-1. The I.O. has recorded the statement of CWs-2, 3, 4 and 9. At a cursory glance, the statement reveals that there is no role played by accused No.2 in causing miscarriage to CW-1 without her consent and also caused physical as well as mental harassment. CW-9, the doctor who treated CW-1 has given a statement before the I.O. that CW-1 herself has taken tablets from her after getting treatment at her clinic itself. The Sessions Court ought to have assessed the entire materials secured by the I.O. leveled against the accused to consider the application for discharge, whether there is any prima-facie case is made out against No.2 in order to face the trial or not, but, in the present case, there is sufficient material to connect accused No.1 to the alleged crime, but there are no sufficient materials to substantiate the participation of accused No.2 in the alleged crime. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no strong material evidence against accused No.2 in the alleged crime and there is no prima-facie case made out against accused No.2 to attract the alleged offences, in order to facing up of trial.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal revision petition filed by the Petitioner/ State is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46) in S.C.No.1364/2014 in respect of accused No.2 is hereby confirmed.
It is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not influence the mind of the court below, to dispose of the case on merits where the accused No.1 is required to face trial.
Sd/- JUDGE DH