THE STATE BY DODDABELAVANGALA STATION v. MANJUNATHA

(BY SRI.LEELADHAR H P, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.08.2019, PASSED BY THE COURT OF IV ADDL. AT DODDABALLAPURA IN S.C. NO. 10023/2017, DISCHARGING THE RESPONDENT ACCUSED NO.4 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 341,344,363,366,504,114,202 R/W SECTION 34 IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. SESSIONS DISTRICT JUDGE, AND THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.04.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 2 - CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CAV ORDER This petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is by the State, challenging the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed by respondent/accused No.4 under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. A charge sheet came to be filed by the Doddabelavangala police against accused Nos.1 to 4 alleging that there was monitory dealings between accused No.1 and complainant. In this background on

14.12.2015, at 7.00 a.m, accused No.1 way laid car bearing registration No.KA-05/MM-2082 which was driven by accused No.2 who was working as driver of the said car, in which he used to daily drop and pick up CW- 2/prosecutrix to her college and accused No.1 abducted CW-2/prosecutrix and kept her in illegal confinement for - 3 - 73 days at Pune, Ahmednagar, Shirdi, Bijapur, Gulbarga, Isnapur and other placed and caused mental harassment to her. Accused No.3 captured photographs and videographs of CW-2/prosecutrix with accused No.2 as though they were married and uploaded them on facebook and later deleted the said photographs and videographs in order to destroy evidence. Accused No.4 used to force CW-2/prosecutrix to marry accused No.2 and helped him monetarily and thereby all the accused persons have committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 344, 363, 366, 506, 114, 201 r/w Section 34 I.P.C.

4. Accused No.4 Manjunath filed application under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C to discharge him contending that he is maternal uncle of Accused No.1 Ambarish. The allegation against him are that he supported accused No.1 to marry CW-2/prosecutrix and provided financial assistance. Except the said allegation made in the charge sheet there are no materials or evidence to substantiate the same. The investigating officer has not collected to any evidence to prove that - 4 - accused No.4 provided any financial assistance to accused No.1. In the light of the same no purpose would serve making him stand the trial.

5. After considering the objections filed by the learned public prosecutor, the trial Court allowed the application filed by accused No.4 and discharged him.

6. Challenging the same, the State has come with this petition contending that the impugned order is passed without there being any application of mind. The allegations made in the charge sheet are not examined by the trial Court before passing the impugned order. The entire charge sheet averments are required to be examined to appreciate the allegations made against accused No.4. Before incident, accused No.1 attempted to marry some other lady and demanded dowry. In that case also, accused No.4 is involved. It is for the prosecution to prove the allegations at the trial and without providing opportunity to it the trial Court has erred in discharging accused No.4 and hence the petition.

7. Heard arguments and perused the records. - 5 -

8. From the material placed on record, according to the prosecution, accused No.1 Ambarish was working as a driver and also taking care of poultry form run by complainant Anand. Accused No.2 was also working under the complainant as a driver. At the relevant point of time, he was driving the car of CW-2/prosecutrix. Everyday he used to drive her to college and back. The allegations against accused persons are that there were monetarily transactions between complainant and accused No.1 and in this background on 14.12.2015 at 7:00 AM as usual when accused No.2 was taking CW-2/prosecutrix to the college, accused No.1 intercepted them and abducted CW- 2/prosecutrix. Accused No.1 took CW-2/prosecutrix to various places viz., Pune, Ahmednagar, Shirdi, Bijapur, Gulbarga, Isnapur and other places, kept her in illegal confinement and caused mental harassment to her. They also captured photographs and videographs of CW- 2/prosecutrix with accused No.2 as though they were married and uploaded them on Facebook and later deleted the said photographs and videographs in order to destroy evidence. Insofar as allegation against accused No.4 is - 6 - that he used to force CW-2/prosecutrix to marry accused No.2 and helped monetarily accused No.2 and thereby all the accused persons have committed offences.

9. Except bald allegations, the investigating officer has not collected any evidence to show how exactly accused No.4 gave monetary help to accused No.1. It is true that in order to survive for a prolonged period of 73 days, that too traveling and staying in hotels require lot of money. The best evidence that could be gathered by the investigating officer was to ascertain how exactly the expenses were borne by accused No.1, whether he was withdrawing money from his account or someone else was paying for the expenses incurred by accused No.1 and CW2/prosecutrix.

10. It may be true that as the maternal uncle of accused No.1, accused No.4 was interested in the marriage of marrying CW-2/prosecutrix and accused No.1. However, he was not physically present with them. The only allegation was that he was giving monetary help to accused No.1. In fact, the recording of entire evidence of - 7 - prosecution was completed and no evidence has come on record to prove the said allegation. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, in the absence of legal evidence, except on the bald allegation made in the charge sheet, accused No.4 cannot be prosecuted. Therefore, rightly, the trial Court is justified in discharging him. This Court finds no illegality to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this petition fails and accordingly, the following: ORDER

2. Petition filed by State under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is rejected. The impugned order dated 13.08.2019 passed in S.C.No.10023/2017 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura hereby confirmed. - 8 -

3. The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE ASN