1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.80/2018
BETWEEN
1. Smt. Narasamma,
W/o. C.Muniyappa
Aged about 64 years,
Residing near Prashanthi
BalaMandir, North Extension
Chikkaballapur-562101.
2. Smt. Srikala @ Kamu
D/o. Muniyappa,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.34/1,
Sri. Venkateshwaranilya
3rd Cross, 8th Main,
Matthikere, Bangalore
Now R/at Prashanthi
Balamandira Road,
North Extension,
Chikkaballapur-562101.
…Petitioners
(By Sri. MRC Manohar, Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka
By Chikkaballapur
Town Police Station,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
2
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560001.
…Respondent
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to
set aside in order dated 06.01.2018 passed by the I
Additional District and Session Judge, Chikkaballapur in
S.C.No.74/2015 registered by Chikkaballapur Town Police
Station, Chikkaballapur, for the offence punishable under
Sections 498A, 304B, 302 read with 34 of IPC and Section
3, 4, 6 of D.P Act and discharge the petitioners in the
above case.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
admission this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed under Section 397
Cr.P.C. questioning the legality and propriety of the order
passed by the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Chikkaballapur in SC.No.74/2015. The accused No.2 and 3
made an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and sought
their discharge. The learned trial Judge by the impugned
order dismissed the application.
3
2. Heard the petitioners’ counsel and the learned
High Court Government Pleader.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, it becomes
clear that the Sessions Judge has not at all applied his
mind to come to the conclusion whether there is a case of
discharge or not. All that he has done is to refer to
number of witnesses cited in the charge sheet and some
judgments cited by the learned counsel. Para 8 of the
impugned order, is as below:
” I have gone through the said citations, but in
the present case the witnesses have given
statements about the alleged demand of dowry by
the accused and refusal of deceased for sending
to her parents house at the time of delivery and
medical expenses borne out by the parents of
deceased are sufficient materials at this stage and
the above said citations are not of much
assistance to the accused for discharge and the
applications are liable to be rejected. Accordingly,
I answer the above point in the negative”.
4
4. Therefore it is evident that the learned Sessions
Judge has not at all applied his mind in deciding the
application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge
is expected to assess the evidence collected by the
Investigating Officer to come to a conclusion whether there
is a case for discharge or not. Since the trial court judge
has not at all applied his mind, I am of the opinion that
this matter requires to be remanded for reconsideration.
Therefore, petition is allowed. Impugned order is set
aside. The trial court is directed to decide the application
under Section 227 Cr.P.C. once again in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sd
