IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JULY, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.423 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1. Shakuntala @ Saki Sahu
W/o Jagannath Sahoo
Aged 71 years

2. Jagannath Sahoo
S/o Chitanya Sahoo
Aged 80 years

Both are residing
at Flat No.306
S.K.Residency, 6th Cross
Kasuvanahalli
Sarjapura
Bengaluru – 560 035

Native of Kandabindha via
Gadasila, Dhanakanal District
Odishaa.
… PETITIONERS
(By Sri.Hashmath Pasha, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka by
Women Police Station
East Zone
2

Bengaluru – 560 040

(Represented by learned
State Public Prosecutor)
…RESPONDENT
(By Sri.S.Vishwamurthy, HCGP)

This Crl.RP is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the order dated 29.01.2018 passed in
Spl.C.C.No.356/2017 on the file of the L Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bangalore for the offences under
Section 498A, 376, 354, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and under
Section 5(M)(L) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act and
consequently discharge them from this case

This Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this
day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned HCGP for the State at the time of admission of this

petition.

2. This revision petition has been filed by the

petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 against the order passed by

the Court below in Spl.C.C.No.356/2017 dated 29.01.2018 by

rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
3

seeking for discharge of accused Nos.2 and 3 from the alleged

offences.

3. It is stated in this revision petition that the

accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 71 and 80 respectively,

and they are the parents of the 1st accused and 1st accused is

said to be the husband of the complainant. That these

accused were not at all connected or having any knowledge

with regard to the commission of alleged offences against the

complainant and her child. The complainant is the daughter-

in-law of these petitioners. A complaint has been lodged

against the accused herein along with accused No.1 before the

concerned police alleging that accused No.1 i.e., husband of

the complainant has harassed and humiliated her. The

statement of daughter of the complainant is nothing but

concocted statement prepared by the complainant. The

medical certificate also does not mention any alleged over tact

attributed against these accused Nos.2 and 3. The medical

certificate relating to daughter of the complainant who is cited

as CW-2, there is no specific allegation made against these
4

accused Nos.2 and 3 relating to direct over tact by the accused

in the history given before the doctor, who is daughter of the

complainant, aged about 9 years. Whereas the statement of

witnesses said to be recorded by the police during the course

of investigation wherein charge sheet laid against the accused

of alleged offence, it does not disclose the over tact

attributable against these accused Nos.2 and 3, who are said

to be in-laws of the complainant. There is no prima facie case

against these accused for framing of charge to proceed with

the case. Whereas the ingredients of the alleged offences

against accused does not constitute to proceed against them

relating to framing of charge on the basis of the material

which were available on record. Whereas the learned counsel

for the petitioners contending that merely because accused

Nos.2 and 3 are arrayed as accused in the charge sheet laid by

the Investigating Officer, it cannot be said that the

proceedings against them for framing of charge or facing of

trial has to be initiated and he further contended that accused

Nos.2 and 3 are innocent and they have not committed any

offences as alleged against them and a false story has been
5

cooked up by the complainant and they have been made as

scapegoat. It is further contended that the facts exaggerated

in the complaint by the complainant is to gain the sympathy

of the Court. It is further contended that the case of the

complainant suffers from a number of material infirmities and

there does not exists any prima facie case to prosecute them.

Whereas the Court below has erred in considering all the

materials available on record against these accused Nos.2 and

3 though the number of material infirmities are found place

and prima facie, no case does exists against these accused

Nos.2 and 3 to prosecute against them. On these grounds,

the learned counsel for the petitioners urges that the revision

petition may be allowed by discharging the accused Nos.2 and

3 from the alleged offences.

4. On controverting to the arguments advanced by

the learned counsel for the petitioners, as wherein, the learned

HCGP for the State supporting the impugned order passed by

the trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.356/2017 for having rejected the

application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., submits that the
6

Investigating Officer who has laid the charge sheet against the

accused as they being arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 said to

be in-laws of the complainant and also being the parents of

the 1st accused as wherein 1st accused who has subjected to

given harassment to the complainant, which is narrated in the

substance of the complaint said to be recorded by the

Investigating Officer, based upon the complaint, crime came to

be registered and the Investigating Officer has laid the charge

sheet against the accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, there are

specific allegations levelled against accused nos.2 and 3 and

sought for dismissal of the petition as there is devoid of

merits.

5. Having regard to the contention which has taken

by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is relevant to

state that the marriage of the complainant was performed with

the 1st accused for about 11 years back. Subsequent to her

marriage with the 1st accused, they led a happy married life

and also given birth to CW-2. But the 1st accused was given

some sort of harassment to the complainant and has been
7

made a sex slave and also lodged a complaint to that effect

before the police, wherein the Investigating officer has laid the

charge sheet against the accused. Whereas from the material

available on record relating to these petitioners, they were

subjected the complainant to get money from disposing her

ancestral property worth Rs.1 Crore and compelled her

daughter to be with them till she gets money. However,

charge sheet laid against the accused Nos.2 and 3 by the

Investigating Officer do consists the statement of witnesses so

also mahazar said to be conducted in the presence of

witnesses. In so far as these petitioners herein it is relevant to

state that the petitioners being arrayed as accused nos.2 and

3, aged about 70 and 81 years respectively and they were

unable to move independently without any assistance.

However, at a cursory glance of the material statements which

has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners for

the purpose of perusal as well as seeking for discharge of

these accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, it is relevant to

state that CW-1 said to the daughter-in-law and CW-2 said to

be grand daughter of these accused Nos.2 and 3. Merely
8

because the complainant who has filed a complaint against

these petitioners alleging that these accused said to be in

hand in glouse with the 1st accused, who is said to be their

son, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is a strong

prima facie materials against accused Nos.2 and 3 and that

they were also extending harassment. Therefore, at this stage,

it cannot be said that there are strong materials to proceed

against these accused Nos.2 and 3 to frame charges and to

face trial for alleged offences. However it requires

consideration by the Court below on an application filed under

Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for seeking discharge from the alleged

offences, though the trial Court has gone through the

statement of witnesses as well as averments made in the

complaint and so also the documentary evidence which has

been produced by the Investigating Officer, who has laid the

charge sheet against these accused Nos.2 and 3, but the trial

Court without considering the same, rejected the application.

The same has been challenged by urging various grounds in

this petition. Therefore, it is relevant to state, without

expressing any merits of the case as wherein 1st accused
9

requires to face trial for the alleged offence, hence it is said

that there is substance in the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioners for intervention in the order passed

by the trial Court on an application filed under Section 227

Cr.P.C. in Spl.C.C.No.356/2017 relating to these petitioners

being arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3. In terms of the

aforesaid reasons this petition requires to be allowed.

6. Therefore, this revision petition is hereby

allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Court below

rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

The accused Nos.2 and 3 are hereby discharged from the

charges levelled against them as laid by the Investigating

officer. As a consequence, the application filed under Section

227 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

In view of the disposal of the main petition,

I.A.No.1/18 does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE
Prs*