The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19617 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2019 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 37 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-1 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP.) AND: 1. T. B. PARVATHAIAH S/O LATE BHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O T. B. PARVATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 3. SMT NALINAKSHI W/O C S GANESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SANJAY YADAV B., ADV. FOR SRI. MAHESH S. AND CO., ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO 3.) - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19617 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2019 HC-KAR THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRL.R.P. AND SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 10.10.2017 IN S.C.NO.738/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER The State has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Trial Court on application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., in S.C. No.738/2008 which was partly allowed and discharged accused Nos.2 to 4 i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and rejected the application filed by accused No.1. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this Revision Petition are that one Vanajakshi was working as staff nurse. It is alleged that she fell in love with one P Lokesh, who - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19617 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2019 HC-KAR belongs to different caste and inspite of the advice being given not to marry the said Lokesh, she married him at Dharmasthala. It is further alleged that after marriage, they set up a matrimonial home at Hanumanthanagara and their marriage was also not approved by the parents of the said Lokesh. It is also alleged that the said Lokesh used to abuse Vanajakshi on the ground that she has not brought money to set up his business and used to harass her to give him divorce, if she does not bring money from her parental home and due to his constant harassment, the parents of her had arranged Rs.8,00,000/- and given to the said Lokesh to set up his business. But, inspite of the same, the said Lokesh was continuously harassing her physically and abusing her and unable to bear the said harassment, the said Vanajakshi on 04.01.2008, committed suicide and it also come to the knowledge that her in-laws, had also joined her husband in harassing the said Vanajakshi and as such, the mother of the said Vanajakshi lodged first information before the jurisdictional - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19617 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2019 HC-KAR police on 04.01.2008, which came to be registered in Crime No.3/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short). 4. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was registered against this accused in C.C.No.8693/2008. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered in S.C.No.738/2008. On behalf of accused, application was filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and objection was filed by the prosecution. Having heard on both sides, the Trial Court has allowed the said application in respect of accused Nos.2 to 4 and rejected in respect of accused No.1 and discharged accused Nos.2 to 4 of the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 and 304B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and framed charge against accused No.1 for the alleged offence. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2017, the State - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19617 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2019 HC-KAR has preferred the present revision petition on the ground
Decision
that the impugned order is illegal, invalid, contrary to law and probabilities of the case. The Trial Court without considering the charge sheet and material placed by the prosecution in its proper perspective has discharged the accused/respondents and as such, the order suffers from serious miscarriage of justice. Further, the Trial Court has discharged the accused/respondents mainly on the ground that the marriage between the deceased and accused No.1 was love marriage and respondents had no role to play in the marriage. Accused/respondent Nos.1 and 2 being parents in-laws were residing separately and as such, there is no prima-facie material that the deceased was subjected to any kind of harassment and ill-treatment, demanding dowry which led to the deceased to commit suicide and as no prima-facie case was forthcoming to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to any kind of cruelty and harassment by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19617 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2019 HC-KAR accused/respondents, has allowed the petition discharging them from the alleged offences. 5. The Trial Court, while discharging the accused/respondents, has not at all taken into consideration the seriousness of the offences and the role played by respondents herein and the materials produced by prosecution to prove the case in its proper perspective. 6. The prosecution papers reveal that there are prima-facie material to proceed against accused Nos.2 to 4. At the stage of Section 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C., the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom are taken at their face value, the same would disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence, for this limited purpose, the evidence of prosecution, at initial stage, cannot be accepted as gospel truth, even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. On all these grounds, sought to allow this revision petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19617 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2019 HC-KAR 7. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and sought to dismiss this revision petition. 8. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of material on record, the following points would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the impugned order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Trial Court is illegal, perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities? 2. What order? 9. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: in the negative. Point No.2: as per final order. Regarding point No.1: 10. I have carefully examined the material placed before me. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19617 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2019 HC-KAR On the basis of the complaint filed by one Smt. Gowramma, sister of deceased, Hanumanthanagar Police have registered the case against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation, the investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, the prosecution has filed application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. for adding Section 304B Indian Penal Code. 11. On perusal of the said prosecution papers, it is crystal clear that accused No.1 - Lokesh is resident of No.541, 3rd Cross, 7th Main, Hanumanthanagar, Bengaluru- 560 085. Accused Nos.2 to 4 are residing at Thimmasandra Village, Ramanagara Taluk & District and the same is not in dispute. This residential address given - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19617 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2019 HC-KAR by the investigating officer reveals that accused Nos.2 to 4 are not residing with accused No.1 and deceased Vanajakshi. The Trial Court has observed in paragraph Nos.17 to 20 as under: "17. On careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record in the charge sheet, it appears that there is absolutely no material against the accused Nos. 2 to 4 to frame charge for any of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306 and 304B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. When the marriage of the deceased Vanajakshi with the accused No.1 was love marriage, there was no question of the accused Nos.2 to 4, they being the parents-in-law deceased, demanding any dowry during the marriage or at any time subsequent to the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased Vanajakshi. But, as discussed herein above, there are sufficient materials against the accused No.1 to frame charge for the offences charge offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. sister-in-law including sheeted and the of 18. Moreover, as pointed out by the counsel for the accused persons, the provision of Sec.227 of Cr.P.C. reads thus: 'Discharge- If, upon consideration of the record of the case accused, the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19617 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2019 HC-KAR no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.' As per the said provision, it is clear that this Court shall discharge the accused persons for the offence charge sheeted, if this Court considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons from the materials available on record. Mere fact that charge sheet is filed against the accused persons for any of the offence cannot be a ground to frame charge against them by the Court, unless the Court considers whether there is any sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons for the offence charge sheeted. 19. On considering the statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigation officer at the time of investigation, there is no allegation against the accused No.2 to 4 that they were involved in the incident of death of the deceased and that the death of the deceased was the result of any ill-treatment and harassment by the accused No.2 to 4 demanding dowry in connection with the marriage of the accused No.1. Mere fact that the accused No.2 and 3 are parents and the accused No.4 is the sister of the accused No.1 cannot by itself make out any case against them for the alleged offence. As discussed herein above, there is no material against the accused No.2 to 4 to proceed against them in the case for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306 and 304B of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of the Act. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:19617 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2019 HC-KAR 20. The fact that the accused persons have not challenged the order passed by this Court on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. for adding Sec.304B of Indian Penal Code cannot be a ground to reject this application. Hence the accused persons have proved point No.1 in respect of the accused Nos.2 to 4. Consequently, the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative in respect of the accused Nos.2 to 4 and answered in the negative in respect of accused No.1." 12. On reconsideration and re-evaluation of entire prosecution papers, I do not find any error/legal infirmities in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in negative. Regarding point No.2: 13. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is dismissed. ii. The order dated 10.10.2017 passed on application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.738/2008 on the file of the Court of XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46) is hereby confirmed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:19617 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2019 HC-KAR iii. Registry is directed to send copy of this trial court records order along with forthwith, to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22