Karnataka High Court M C Gowramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2014Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.213/2014 BETWEEN:
D/O LATE M P CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO. 312, 5TH CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 043.
2. SUDHA UMASHANKAR
W/O UMASHANKAR, 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.130, 14TH CROSS
PEENYA, BANGALORE – 560 058. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRINIVASA RAO S.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANCHENAHALLI POLICE STATION GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561 211
CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.02.2014, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHICKBALLAPUR IN S.C.NO.2/2013.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2
Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for State.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused 3 & 4 in S.C.No.2/2013 pending trial for offences punishable under sections 498A & 306 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners are the elder sisters of accused No.1 (husband of deceased Chandrakala). The marriage of accused No.1 and deceased Chandrakala was performed in the year 1996. After the marriage, deceased was living with her husband in Manchenahalli Village, Gowribidanur Taluk. Accused No.1 was an agriculturist. Accused No.3 (petitioner No.1) is a resident of HRBR Layout at Bangalore. Accused No.3 is dwarf and not married. Accused No.3 is aged about 55 years. Accused No.3 is being taken care of by her elder brother in HRBR Layout at Bangalore. Accused No.4 (petitioner No.2) is the elder sister of accused No.1 and she is living with her husband in XIV cross, Peenya at Bangalore. In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate should have 3
considered the documents filed under section 173(5) Cr.P.C., with reference to each of accused. The learned Magistrate has made certain sweeping observations. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
3. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER
The revision petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to learned Magistrate to reconsider the plea of discharge raised by accused 3 & 4 in the light of observations made herein and in accordance with law.