IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P.NO.6911/2019 BETWEEN 1. VIKYATH B S/O BHANDESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE 2. SHREYAS B S/O BHANDESH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS OCCUPATION: STUDENT PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/O NO.597, 8TH MAIN 18TH CROSS, M C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 040 (BY SRI A M SHODHAN BABU, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN P.S, TUMAKURU REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 2. DR. JAYANTHI J W/O JAYADEV AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O B H ROAD ...PETITIONERS BEHIND GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL GANDHINAGAR TUMAKURU-572 101 (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI VEDAMURTHACHAR.G, ADV. FOR R2.) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU IN C.C.NO.186/2017 AND ORDER DATED 17.08.2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN CRL.RP.NO.71/2018 AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2018 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 and the learned HCGP.
2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there is no material to demonstrate the commission of offences either under Sections 324 or 354-B of IPC.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that even as per the complaint, apart from stating that she was beaten with a stick on the elbow and neck and on account of the beating she suffered abrasion and swelling on the right leg, there is no allegation that the attack was on to a vital part which could have resulted in the loss of life and hence invoking Section 324 is absolutely without basis. He would also contend that the courts below have not applied their mind with reference to the material on which they have sought to reject the contentions. He would contend that even as per the complaint, there is no allegation that any attempt was made by the accused to disrobe or in compelling her to remain nude. The complaint do not disclose any of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence under Section 354-B or 324 IPC.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that the courts below have specifically observed that after perusal of the material on record, the Trial Court has arrived at the conclusion that there are grounds to proceed against the petitioners. The revisional court has also observed that the Magistrate has looked into the material, and therefore, the revision has to be rejected.
5. This Court has adverted to the arguments and submissions on both sides and has also carefully perused the orders of the courts below.
6. The order of the Trial Court reflects an absolute lack of application of mind. The specific contentions on behalf of the petitioners is reflected in the order, but the order by the Trial Court is totally bereft of any reasoning with reference to either to the material objects or the statement of witnesses. The very approach of the Trial Court appears to be a callous one. When specific contentions are raised with regard to the sustainability of certain charges, the Trial Court was duty bound to address those arguments with reference to the material on record. There is not even a whisper by the Trial Court as to whether the stick could have been construed as a instrument for cutting, stabbing or shooting. It has not even described as to whether the stick which has been marked as M.O. is sufficiently strong enough to cause a critical injury.
7. As regards the other limb of argument with regard to the sustainability of charge under Section 354-B, the contention on behalf of the petitioners that no case is made out by the complainant is not answered with reference to any other material on record. Such a callous and whimsical approach cannot be appreciated. The statute provides for an opportunity to the accused to avoid the rigors of a trial by way of a discharge. The said provision is not an empty formality and when an appropriate application is made, a duty is cast on the courts below to address the contentions with reference to the material and render an appropriate finding with reference to the material on record. The orders must necessarily reflect a judicious approach and judicial application of mind.
8. The approach of the revisional court cannot be appreciated. It has deemed it fit to reject the revision petition virtually by a one line order. After reckoning the contentions, the revisional court has reasoned as under:
“The learned Magistrate after considering the rival contentions has come to the conclusion that, the charges against the petitioners are not groundless. Therefore, the application filed by them under Section 239 of Cr.PC is dismissed. The learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in dismissing the said application filed by the petitioners.”
(underlining by this Court) 9. This appears to be the sole reasoning by the revisional court to reject the application. To state the least, both the orders are vitiated by non-application of mind. The orders appear to have been passed in a mechanical fashion.
10. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. Both the orders are set aside. The application is remitted back to the Trial Court for consideration and disposal afresh and in the manner herein stated above. It is made clear that petitioner no.2 is entitled to file one more application under Section 205 and if such an application is preferred, the same shall be considered and disposed off in accordance with law.
The petition stands ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR