1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MAY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.211/2018
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.224/2018
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.240/2018

IN CRL.R.P. No.211/2018

BETWEEN:

1. Sri Siva Vallabhaneni
Wrongly mentioned as
Shiva Vallabhaneni @
Sri Nithya Sachitananda in the
Charge sheet,
S/o Sathyanarayana Murthy
Aged 54 years
Wrongly stated as R/o
Nithyananda Dhyanapeeta
Kallugopanahalli, Bidadi Hobli
Ramnagara Taluk and
District – 562 109
Residing at Esteem Heritage
Pearl 203 3/7, Rose Garden Road
J.P.Nagar, 5th Phase,
Bengaluru – 560 078.

2. Smt.Ragini Vallabhaneni
Wrongly mentioned as
Ragini @ Maa Nithya
2

Sachitananda in the charge sheet
W/o Siva Vallabhaneni
Aged 59 years
Wrongly stated as
R/o Nithyananda Dhyanapeeta
Kallugopanahalli, Bidadi Hobli
Ramnagara Taluk and
District – 562 109

Residing at Esteem Heritage
Pearl 203 3/7,
Rose Garden Road
J.P.Nagar, 5th Phase,
Bengaluru – 560 078. …PETITIONERS

(By Sri Ravi B. Naik, Senior Counsel for
Smt.Vijetha R. Naik, Adv.)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
Through Bidadi Police Station
Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru – 560 001. …RESPONDENT

(By Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, SPP-II)

*****
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying
to set aside the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the
III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanagara in S.C.No.86/2014 and order be passed
for discharge and petition No.1/Accused No.3 and
petitioner No.2/Accused No.5.
3

IN CRL.R.P. NO.224/2018

BETWEEN:

1. Dhanasekar @ Sri Nithya Sadhananda
S/o Thiruvengadam
Aged about 60 years
R/at Nithyananda Dhyanapeeta
Kallugopanahalli,
Bidadi Hobli
Ramnagara Taluk

Presently residing at
No.14, Pulicar Street
Tiruchengode
Tamil Nadu – 637 211.

2. Smt.Jamuna Rani @ Ma Nithya Sadananda
W/o Danasekaran
Aged about 56 years
R/at Nithyananda Dhyanapeeta
Kallugopanahalli,
Bidadi Hobli
Ramnagara Taluk

Presently residing at
No.14, Pulicar Street
Tiruchengode
Tamil Nadu – 637 211. …PETITIONERS

(BY Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel for
Sri Sandeep S. Patil, Adv.)

AND:

State of Karnataka
Through Bidadi Police Station
4

Ramanagara District
Ramanagara
Represented by its Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru – 560 001. …RESPONDENT

(By Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, SPP-II)

*****
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside
the order dated 19.02.2018 passed in
SPL.C.No.86/2014 pending on the file of the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara.

IN CRL.R.P. NO.240/2018

BETWEEN:

1. Sri Gopala Sheelam Reddy @
Nithya Bhakthananda
Aged about 53 years
S/o Sheelam Mallareddy
Residing at Nithyananda Dhyanapeeta
Kallugopanahalli
Bidadi Hobli
Ramanagara Taluk and District – 571 511.

2. Sri Paramahamsa Nithyananda
Swamy @ Rajashekaran
Aged about 40 years
S/o Annamalai Arunachalam
Residing at Nithyananda Dhyanapeeta
Kallugopanahalli
Bidadi Hobli
Ramanagara Taluk
5

and District – 571 511. …PETITIONERS

(By Sri C.V.Nagesh, Senior Counsel for
Sri Raghavendra K., Adv.)

AND:

State of Karnataka
By the Station House Officer
Bidadi Police Station
Ramanagar District
Ramanagar – 571 511. …RESPONDENT

(By Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, SPP-II)

*****

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying
to set aside the order passed in S.C.No.86/2014
dated 19.02.2018 passed in the case on the
application filed by the petitioners under Section 227
of Code of Criminal Procedure.

These Criminal Revision Petitions having been
heard and reserved for order on 20.04.2018 and
coming on for pronouncement of order this day, the
Court made the following:-
6

ORDER

The above three revision petitions are directed

against the order dated 19.2.2018 passed by the 3rd

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagar

rejecting the applications filed by the revision

petitioners-accused under Sections 227 and 228 of

Cr.P.C. in S.C. No.86/2014. The revision petitioners

herein have challenged the legality and correctness of

the said order of the learned Sessions Judge on the

grounds as mentioned in the respective above three

revision petitions.

2. The facts leading to filing of these revision

petitions are that the revision petitioners filed an

application under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C.

seeking their discharge from the proceedings. In the

said applications, it is stated that the evidence

collected by the investigator during the course of the

investigation of the crime, both oral and
7

documentary, and which are brought on record in the

case in the form of Final Report filed under section

173(2) of Cr.P.C. and such of those materials which

he had collected during the course of the

investigation of the crime, again, which are both oral

and documentary, and which he has not chosen to

bring the same on record in the case and which

evidence he was compelled to place before this

Hon’ble Court consequent to the order which came to

be passed by this Court in the criminal petition that

had been filed by the accused, if read to their face

value as true, do not make out any offence, let alone,

the one that are mentioned in the Final Report filed

in the case. The basic essential ingredients that

would constitute the commission of offences said to

have been committed by the accused and that are

mentioned in the final report filed in the case are

found lacking in the evidence collected by the

investigator.

8

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and this Court, the unquestionable,

unimpeachable and admitted documents that are

produced by the accused, if read, while hearing the

accused for their discharge in the case, would

demonstrably indicate that the story projected by the

prosecution will have no legs to stand and that the

accused are falsely implicated in the case for certain

inexplicable reasons that are well within the

knowledge of couple of prosecution witnesses. The

registration of the crime, its investigation and the

submission of the final report in the case is itself bad

for the reason that the person who is said to have

been aggrieved projected in the complaint filed on

which basis, the crime came to be registered, has not

even cited as a prosecution witness. But for the

efforts, the accused had made the statement of the

person who has been projected as a victim of an act
9

of sexual assault, would not have seen the light of the

day at all.

The person who has been projected as a victim

of an act of sexual assault, as is evident from her

statement, recorded by the investigator, during the

course of the investigation of the crime, absolutely

has no grievance whatsoever against the accused. In

this view of the matter, it has got to be said that the

result of investigation of the crime lacks in bona fide

and smells of malafide action.

The accused, for no sin or wrong on their part,

are being subjected to the acts of harassment, mental

torture, obviously to wreck malice and vengeance and

to compel them to enter into terms with certain

hidden hands who have put a couple of prosecution

witness in the fore front and who have been fighting

more than one litigation in the United States of

America against the accused and their institution.

The harassment to which the accused are subjected
10

to, for no sin, wrong or fault on their part has got to

be nipped in the bud by an order of discharge in the

case at the hands of this Court.

Therefore, the accused above named pray that

this Court be pleased to, while invoking its

jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C.,

order their discharge in the case and if so permitted,

award compensation for the harassment to which

they are subjected to, for years and years, without

even an element of justification whatsoever by lugging

them into a criminal case which is triable by the

Court of Sessions, in the ends of justice.

3. The respondent-complainant has opposed

the application by filing statement of objections. The

objections are that facts of the case and sum and

substance of the charge sheet is that, accused Nos.1,

4 and 6 have registered a Trust by name

Nithyananda Dhyanapeeta Ashram in Bidadi of
11

Ramanagar District in the year 2003. Later, they

have extended its branches in different names.

Accused No.2 has joined the Nithyananda

Foundation in DUARTE, Los Angeles County,

California, U.S. and became part of Nithyananda

Dhyanapeeta as a follower, taking part in all activities

of the Ashram. Accused Nos.3 and 5 are married

couple having U.S. Citizenship and they joined the

Ashram in the year 2004. Accused No.3 is working

as international secretary for all Nithyananda

organizations and accused No.5 as P.A. to accused

No.1 in U.S. and in Bidadi Ashram. Accused Nos.4

and 6 are another married couple from Tamilnadu

who joined the Bidadi Ashram since its existence as

its staunch disciples. Later, accused No.4 became

the official secretary of accused No.1 and Ashram,

and accused No.6 the personal assistant to accused

No.1. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were having full knowledge

of all the activities of Ashram. The Ashram was
12

initially carrying some spiritual activities like

Dhyana, Yoga and etc. Later, accused No.1 with aid

of other accused used to arrange programmes and

courses to preach yoga, dhyana and bhakthi in

different places. Therefore, many people interested in

such spiritual activities being inspired by the

speeches have joined the said Ashram. Therefore,

many people interested in such spiritual activities

being inspired by the speeches have joined the said

Ashram.

4. One K. Lenin, being captivated by the speech

and preaching of accused No.1, in 2006, had joined

and stayed at Ashram and he was renamed as Nithya

Dharmananda by accused No.1. His honest services

were acknowledged by accused No.1 and hence, he

was allowed to work as his faithful car driver. In the

early part of the year 2005, C.W.3 of this case has

joined the Ashram along with her parents C.W.4,
13

being fascinated to the spiritual speeches, by reading

the texts written by accused No.1, and watching the

programmes on TV etc. There were about 250 men

and women followers in the age group of 18 and 60

who stay in the Ashrama by performing seva. The

other persons amongst them were C.Ws.8 to 11, 119

who joined the Ashram and were rendering their loyal

services to accused No.1. It is observed by these

witnesses that accused Nos.2 to 6 were in the close

circle of accused No.1. The complaint of C.W.1, the

statement given by C.Ws.3, 4, 8 to 11, 119 and other

witnesses recorded by investigation officer under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. are relevantly explained as to

how they joined the Ashram.

5. It is the complainant C.W.1 could able to

watch some illegal and bad mannered activities of

accused No.1 during his close stopover with accused

No.1, that accused No.1 used to misbehave with the
14

devotees, more particularly with young females.

During the time of April 2009, C.W.119 enquired

C.W.1 about it. Since then, C.W.1 was watching the

activities of accused No.1 with all attentiveness. He

observed the behaviour and activities of accused No.1

with C.W.3 that seems to be ill mannered and

loutish. In November 2009, the Personal Secretary of

accused No.1, Nithya Gopika told C.W.1 of having

received physical and mental torture from Swami

Nithyananda. Thus, his suspicion turned into

certainty and conclusive. By the time, C.W.1 made

enquiries with C.W.3, who did not give true account

to him as she was totally under the cult control of

accused No.1. But later when they plotted an idea to

plant a concealed camera in the bedroom of accused

No.1, they got solid evidence of having the sexual

activities of accused No.1 with another Ashramate by

name Ms. Ranjita. Being shocked of the fact and

ruined of their deep faith and trust reposed on
15

accused No.1, they left the Ashram and with an

intention to save the innocent followers from the

clutches of Ashram, C.W.1 had copied the video to

many CDs and dropped it to the offices of TV

channels for needful action.

On 2nd and 3rd March, 2010, many TV channels

telecasted the episode on the digital media and on

4.3.2010, C.W.1 lodged the complaint before CCB,

Chennai police. The same was registered in crime

No.112/2010 for the offences punishable under

Sections 295(A), 376, 377, 420 and 506(1) of IPC and

on the same day, another complaint was registered

before CCB police, Kovai in Cr. No.16/2010 for the

offences punishable under Sections 295(A) and 420

of IPC on the complaint of one T.M. Vishwanath of

Kovai. Later, on the point of jurisdiction, both the

FIRs were transferred to Karnataka Police i.e., Bidadi

police station. As per the direction of DGP,

Karnataka, the investigation of both the cases were
16

referred to CID police who investigated the cases and

filed charge sheet.

Since the date of telecasting of the episode on

TV media, the accused persons had run away from

Ashram and concealed themselves in unknown

places. At this juncture, during the course of

investigation, on enquiry by the investigating officer,

the other ashramates found in the Ashram did not

disclose the whereabouts of the accused persons.

The statements of these persons did not give any

hints of the accused and their activities. The female

person found in the video was identified Ms.

Ranjitha, for whom the investigating officer made

efforts to find her out. But after a long delay, she

appeared before the investigating officer and gave her

statement denying her connection with the episode.

Later, one Amala (C.W.3) had come forward

with a complaint that she was a victim of sexual

assault of accused No.1. On 17.8.2010, she gave her
17

statement to the investigating officer explaining how

she was exploited by the accused No.1 with the aid

and assistance of other accused persons by operating

cult over her and accused No.1 precast her by

brainwashing and deceitfully assaulted sexually. The

statement of this witness was attached to the charge

sheet at page Nos.356 to 369 and her further

statement at page No.370.

Another witness C.W.119 who was residing in

U.S. had also contacted the investigating officer and

he gave his statement through skype internet digital

media and the same was recorded by the

investigating officer. The said statement was

attached to the additional charge sheet available at

page Nos.178 to 187. The statement reveals that

accused No.1 is a debauched to unnatural sexual

activities and committed unnatural offences over this

witness. Further C.W.119 was given criminal
18

intimidation to his life from accused No.1 and

through other accused persons.

It seems, in the investigation, the accused

persons used to get executed an agreement from the

disciples more particularly with whom accused No.1

was having sexual connections. Such agreements

called in abbreviation as NDA (Non Disclosure

Agreement). The same were got signed without giving

opportunity to read the contents. It is much

pertinent that such few NDAs were recovered from

the custody of C.W.9 who was asked by the accused

persons to hand it over to them after the exposer of

the episode for destruction. The same are recovered

and made available with additional charge sheet at

page Nos.69 to 168. Accused No.6 has signed these

NDAs on behalf of the Ashram. In the addendum to

the NDA, it is shown that the ‘volunteer understands

that the programme may involve the learning and

practice of ancient tantric secretes associated with
19

male and female ecstasy, including the use of sexual

energy —– foundation. Such NDAs have been used

against the victims for frightening them with dire

consequences. These facts demonstrate that the

accused persons with all criminal conspiracy involved

in commission of the offences.

The other important witness is C.W.102 before

whom accused No.1 made extra judicial confession of

his criminal activities whose statement is available

with the additional charge sheet at page No.15. Also

another disciple of the Ashram one Amuda Bharathi

whose son had fallen prey to the perverted acts of the

accused, who had attempted to commit suicide, they

were put under threat by the other accused on the

directions of accused No.1 as not to reveal the truth

to the police. The relevant documents are produced

along with charge sheet that shows the perverted

criminal acts of the accused.

20

The accused has published some books which

are seized and produced for perusal of the Court.

These books were used by the accused persons to

captivate the victims by hypnotize them. The

references of the same are elaborately given by C.W.3

in her 161 statement.

Accused No.1 has taken a plea that he is

incapable of performing sexual acts by producing an

unauthenticated manipulated certificate but on the

directions on Apex Court, the Victoria Hospital

Medical Officers have examined him for the

potentiality test that report is positive.

At the same time, some unauthenticated

medical certificate said to be of the victim C.W.3 is

produced along with a memo annexed to their

application. The same is not permitted to accept on

record, since the same is not a record relevant in the

case and having base of its genuineness.
21

As contemplated under Sections 227 and 228 of

Cr.P.C., the Court has to consider the record of the

case, and the documents produced therewith and

hear the prosecution and the accused. It is settled

proposition of law as per the Apex Court, that a

strong suspicion is enough and only prima facie case

is to be examined before framing of charge or passing

of order of discharge. On the materials on records in

this case, there is sufficient ground for presuming

that the accused has committed an offence. The

accused cannot be discharged from the first

information report or complaint and statement of the

witnesses recorded under Section 161 and from all

other materials, a prima facie case is made out

against the accused.

At this initial stage, the truth, veracity and

effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes

to adduce are not to be meticulously judged and the

standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be
22

applied finally before finding the accused guilty or

otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of

framing a charge. What the Court has to consider at

this stage is only the sufficiency of the ground for

proceeding against the accused and not whether

materials on record are sufficient or adequate for the

conviction. At this stage, it is not permissible to have

a meticulous examination of the statements of

witnesses which are in the case diary saying that the

statements in the case diary are not reliable.

On these grounds, the prosecution sought for

rejection of the application seeking discharge.

6. After hearing both sides and considering the

materials placed, ultimately, the learned Sessions

Judge rejected the applications holding that there is

prima facie case against the revision petitioners-

accused and hence proceeded for framing of the

charges.

23

7. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection

of the applications, the revision petitioners-accused

are before this Court in the above revision petitions.

8. Heard the arguments of learned Senior

Advocate Sri Ravi B. Naik appearing on behalf of the

petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 in Crl.R.P.

No.211/2018, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior

Advocate appearing for petitioners-accused Nos.4 and

6 in Crl.R.P. No.224/2018 so also heard learned

Senior Advocate Sri C.V. Nagesh appearing on behalf

of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.R.P.

No.240/2018 and learned State Public Prosecutor-II

for the respondent-State and also heard the learned

Senior Advocate Smt. Pramila Nesargi.

9. Learned Senior Advocate Sri Ravi B. Naik

appearing on behalf of the petitioners-accused Nos.3
24

and 5 in Crl.R.P. No.211/2018 made submission that

so far as petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 are

concerned, even according to the prosecution case,

the statement of four witnesses are important.

Perusing the statement of these four witnesses, there

is no material to make out prima facie case against

accused Nos.3 and 5. Learned Senior Advocate

drawing the attention of this Court to the statements

of Jayaram dated 26.8.2010, C.R. Hanumantha

dated 27.8.2010, B. Kishan Reddy dated 27.8.2010

and also the statement of R. Balakrishnan @ Nitya

Sadakananda dated 13.9.2010, submitted that if the

statement of all the four witnesses, which are relied

upon by the prosecution, are carefully perused, they

will not make out any case as against petitioners-

accused Nos.3 and 5.

Even the statement of Amala, daughter of

Krishnan Pillai, dated 17.8.2010, there is no

allegation so far as petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5
25

are concerned. Drawing the attention of this Court to

the relevant portion in the statement of said Amala,

the learned Senior Advocate submitted that even her

statement will not make out prima facie case. Hence,

requested to consider the application under Sections

227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of

petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 from the

proceedings. The Learned Sessions Judge has not at

all taken into consideration this aspect of the matter

and has wrongly held that there is prima facie case

even as against petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 and

rejected the application. Hence, the learned Senior

Advocate submitted that the order under the revision

so far as it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5

is patently illegal and not sustainable in law.

The learned Senior Advocate further, drawing

the attention of this Court to the charge sheet

material, submitted that even if the entire material is

perused, it will not show the involvement of the
26

petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 for committing the

alleged offence. Hence, submitted to allow the

revision petition filed by accused Nos.3 and 5 and to

set aside the order under revision and discharge

petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 from the proceedings

by allowing their application.

10. Learned Senior Advocate Sri C.V. Nagesh

appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners-

accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.R.P. No.240/2018

submitted that there are some legal issues to be

considered by this Court. Drawing the attention of

this Court to the order sheet maintained by the

Learned Sessions Judge at page Nos.59, 60, 76 and

77, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that after

hearing on the application seeking discharge of

accused Nos.1 and 2, for a period of one year and one

month, no order was passed on the said application.

Then a request was made by filing another
27

application that in view of lapse of the long time, the

accused may be permitted to provide an opportunity

to refresh the memory of the learned Sessions Judge.

On the said application, no orders were passed.

However, looking to the materials collected during

investigation, it would show that there is no

application of mind by the Learned Sessions Judge.

So far as accused No.2 is concerned, though there is

an order passed by the Apex Court, setting aside the

order of taking cognizance against accused No.2 for

the offence under section 212 of IPC, again the judge

has held that there is prima facie case to frame

charge even for the offence punishable under Section

212 of IPC. Referring to these materials, the learned

Senior Advocate made submission that it is one of the

examples that there is no mental application of the

learned Sessions Judge to the materials available in

the said case.

28

It is the submission of the learned Senior

Advocate Sri C.V. Nagesh that so far as the alleged

offence under Section 506 of IPC is concerned,

absolutely, there is no material collected during

investigation, but, in spite of that, it is mechanically

held by the Learned Sessions Judge that there is

prima facie case as against accused Nos.1 and 2 even

for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.

The learned Senior Advocate further submitted

that when the accused filed an application under

Section 91 of Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected by

the Learned Sessions Judge, the said order of

rejection was challenged before this Court and in the

said case, this Court when directed the investigating

officer to file a status report and at that time, by filing

an affidavit before this Court, the investigating officer

made it clear to the Court that he has also recorded

statement of 48 witness and also collected the

documents during investigation, but those materials
29

are not forming the part and parcel of the charge

sheet. Hence, the learned Senior Advocate made

submission that against the order of rejection on the

application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., the

criminal petition filed before this Court was allowed.

In spite of such direction by this Court to the Learned

Sessions Judge to secure the statement of 48

witnesses and also one medical record from the

investigating officer and to consider those materials

as to whether they were of sterling quality, even then

the Learned Sessions Judge has not at all considered

those materials and they were simply kept in a sealed

cover without opening and without looking to the

materials kept in the sealed cover. Hence, he made

submission that if those materials are called before

this Court, it will amply make it clear that there is no

case as against revision petitioners-accused Nos.1

and 2.

30

With regard to the contention of the prosecution

that accused are not permitted to produce any

material at the stage of considering application for

discharge and framing of the charge, it is only the

prosecution material that has to be looked into by the

Court, the learned Senior Advocate made submission

that, that is not the correct position of law as

interpreted by the Apex Court as well as this Court.

In this connection, he made submission that when

the order passed by this Court in criminal petition in

support of application filed under Section 91 of

Cr.P.C. has not been set aside by the Apex Court and

the materials, if any, produced by the accused person

are of the sterling quality, such material can be

looked into by the Learned Sessions Judge. He also

made submission that in this case, the revision

petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 have not produced

any such material before the Court. But it is the

contention of accused Nos.1 and 2 that any material
31

produced before the investigating officer by way of

their statement or other statements or the documents

produced have to be considered by the Court, if the

said material is of a sterling quality. This legal

position has been completely ignored by the Learned

Sessions Judge and wrongly held that except the

charge sheet materials, the other material cannot be

looked into by it. The said view of the Learned

Sessions Judge is incorrect.

Leaned Senior Advocate also submits that out

of statement of 48 witnesses collected by the

investigating officer during investigation, not even a

statement of single witness has been looked into by

the Learned Sessions Judge and even the certified

copies of the said statements were not furnished to

accused Nos.1 and 2. If accused Nos.1 and 2 were

not having the knowledge of contents in the

statement of those 48 witnesses so also the medical

records, they cannot get prepared to argue their case
32

more effectively and satisfactorily seeking their

discharge from the proceedings. Therefore, interest

of accused Nos.1 and 2 is prejudiced because of non

furnishing of copies of the statement of 48 witnesses.

With regard to the medical report of C.W.3

which is pertaining to years 2003 to 2010 maintained

by the University of Michigan Hospitals and Health

Centers at America, the learned Senior Advocate

submitted that the Apex Court of America secured

those documents by issuing the process. Hence, it

cannot be said that those medical records or the

reports are not said to be authenticated documents

and it also cannot be said that those documents are

produced by accused Nos.1 and 2 because they were

secured by issuing process by the order of the Apex

Court.

It is also the submission of learned Senior

Advocate that in the year 2009, there was other

document of conversation between C.W.3 and
33

C.W.119. Therefore, admittedly, the said document

containing the conversation is in between C.W.3 and

C.W.119 and the said document is of sterling quality,

which ought to have been considered by the Learned

Sessions Judge.

The learned Senior Advocate also made

submission that looking to the order of the Learned

Sessions Judge, except referring to the complaint

averments and the statement of C.W.3, it has not

referred to any other materials i.e., statement of

witnesses and the documents produced in the case.

Hence, the entire materials were not at all perused by

the Learned Sessions Judge and the requirements of

Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to consider the record of the

case is not at all complied with in this case. With

regard to the alleged offence under Section 506 of IPC

is concerned, no material has been placed by the

prosecution, but in spite of that the Learned Sessions

Judge framed the charge even for the offence
34

punishable under Section 506 of IPC, which is

patently illegal and without any material.

Learned Senior Advocate made the submission

that looking to the prosecution material, it is

contended that accused No.1 obtained the consent of

the victim by committing fraud on her. In this

connection, he drew the attention of this Court to

section 375 of IPC and submitted that there is no

mention in the said section that if the consent is

obtained by committing fraud on the victim, then

there is no consent at all but it is rape. Hence, he

submitted that the said contention of the prosecution

that accused No.1 committed rape on the victim by

obtaining the consent by exercising fraud on her,

cannot be accepted at all. With regard to the alleged

offence of rape is concerned, learned Senior Advocate

made submission that looking to the statement of the

victim, it goes to show that she is a lady of easy virtue

and she was suffering from the severe disease i.e.,
35

herpes and because of the said disease,

continuously, she was under treatment in the

University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers

at America and the medical records issued from the

said hospital at America clearly goes to show that she

has made false allegation against accused No.1 that

he has committed rape on her. Learned Senior

Advocate submitted that in the statement of the

victim itself, she has stated that she used to go to the

clubs in America and when her empty bag was

checked, it contained the alcohol bottles and also the

condoms and hence, he submitted that when these

are the facts, the contention of the victim that she

was subjected to the sexual act by accused No.1

cannot be accepted at all.

Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the

medical records from the American hospital i.e.,

University of Michigan Hospitals and Health

Centers, were obtained as per the process issued by
36

the American Court by filing an application before the

said Court. In the said case, certified copies of the

such documents were obtained and hence, the

learned Senior Advocate submitted that when such

documents are before the learned Sessions Judge, he

wrongly rejected to consider those materials on the

ground that some private persons produced those

documents and they are not at all produced by the

investigation officer. Regarding rejection of the said

material also, learned Senior Advocate submitted that

the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of STATE

OF ORISSA VS. DEBENDRA NATH PADHI reported

in (2005)1 SCC 568. But in this connection, learned

Senior Advocate drew the attention of this Court to

the subsequent two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex

Court. They are RUKMINI NARVEKAR VS. VIJAY

SATAREDKAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2009

SC 1013 and HARSHENDRA KUMAR D. VS.

37

REBATILATA KOLEY, ETC. reported in 2011 AIR

SCW 1199. Drawing the attention of this Court to

para No.17 of Rukmini Narvekar’s case so also para

No.22 of Harshendra Kumar’s case, he made

submission that if the documents even if produced by

the accused at the time of framing of the charge and

if those documents were of a sterling quality, such

documents shall have to be taken into consideration.

The learned Sessions Judge has not considered this

legal aspect while passing the order on the

application filed under Sections 227 and 228 of

Cr.P.C.

It is also the submission of the learned Senior

Advocate that on the application filed by the accused

persons under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking a

direction against the investigating officer to produce

some of the documents as mentioned in the

application and when the said application came to be

rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, a criminal
38

petition was preferred before this Court in Crl.P.

No.938/2016. The said criminal petition came to be

allowed by this Court on 21.07.2016 setting aside the

order of the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Senior

Advocate further made submission that in the said

order itself, a direction was issued to the trial Court

to summon the statement of 32 witnesses which were

available to the investigating officer and it was further

directed that so far as six witnesses, medical records

of Arathi Rao, medical records of accused No.1 and e-

mail correspondence between Arathi Rao and Vinay

Bharadwaj is concerned, the trial Court shall look

into the case diary and investigating material and if it

is found that those documents are available, the

same can be secured and considered. Learned Senior

Advocate submitted that in spite of such direction

and the statement of 48 witnesses and the medical

records produced before the learned Sessions Judge,

the same were not considered while passing the order
39

impugned. He further submitted that no doubt the

prosecution preferred the SLP before the Hon’ble

Apex Court. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court has

not set aside the order of this Court, but only the

view taken by this Court has been set aside. Hence,

he submitted that the materials by way of recording

the statement of 48 witnesses which are not forming

part of the charge sheet material ought to have been

considered by the learned Sessions Judge.

So far as the alleged offence under Section 376

of IPC is concerned, learned Senior Advocate drew

the attention of this Court to the medical records,

and submitted that the medical records issued from

the hospitals also support the contention of accused

No.1 and the committee appointed of the medical

officers is to investigate as to what are the reasons for

impotency. Hence, he submitted that even looking to

the medical records also, it cannot be said that the

prosecution has placed the prima facie material for
40

the alleged offence under Section 376 IPC. Hence, it

is his submission that firstly, there is no material

placed by the prosecution to show the alleged sexual

intercourse by accused No.1 as against the victim. In

case, if this Court, after perusal of the material,

comes to conclusion that there is material about the

alleged sexual intercourse, then in that case, the

learned Senior Advocate alternatively pleaded that it

is with the consent of the victim. Therefore, it cannot

be the offence of the rape. In this connection, he

submitted that the victim is a major, she is highly

qualified, she travelled even abroad having sound

knowledge about the worldly affairs. If there is any

such forcible intercourse on her by accused No.1, her

natural conduct that immediately she should have

made such complaint at the earliest point of time.

From the year 2003 to 2010, she had not made any

such complaint. Hence, he submitted that even if

there is any such sex in between accused No.1 and
41

the victim, the material goes to show that it is

consensual in nature and therefore, it cannot be an

offence under Section 376 of IPC.

It is also the contention of the learned Senior

Advocate that so far as the unnatural offence under

Section 377 of IPC is concerned, again the medical

records issued from the Victoria hospital are not

supporting the prosecution case. Hence, he

submitted that even if the entire charge sheet

material is considered as it is, even, without the cross

examination of the prosecution witnesses, it will not

result in conviction of the accused persons and

hence, there is no material to frame the charges

against accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, he submitted

that all these legal aspects so also the material

factual aspects were completely ignored by the

learned Sessions Judge and has wrongly rejected the

application.

42

In support of his contention, learned Senior

Advocate relied upon the following decisions:

1. Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Central Bureau of
Invetigation and others reported in AIR 2007 SC
5735.

2. Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharastra
and another reported in (2014) 16 SCC 623

3. Century Spinning Manufacturing Co. Ltd.,
Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in
AIR 1972 SC 545

4. State of Karnataka Vs. L.Muniswamy and
others
reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489

5. Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and
another reported in AIR 1979 SC 366

6. Niranjan Karam Singh Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj
Bijje
reported in 1990 SCC (4) 76

7. Judgment dated 11.3.1997 of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of State of
Maharashtra
Vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj and others

8. Judgment dated 17.3.2000 of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
S.B.Johari and others
43

9. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Mohan Lal Soni
reported in AIR 2000 SC 2583

10. Judgment dated 14.12.2007 of Hon’ble
Supreme
Court of India in Appeal (Crl.)No.1716/2007 in
the case of Onkar Nath Mishra and others Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) and another

11. State of M.P. Vs. Sheetla Sahai and others
reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5514

12. Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation
decided on 20.09.2010 by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in its Criminal Appellate
Jurisdiction

13. Judgment dated 17.12.2014 of Hon’ble
Supreme
Court of India in Crl.A.No.2602/2014 in the
case of State Tr. Insp. Of Police Vs. A.Arun
Kumar and another

14. Judgment dated 15.12.2017 of Hon’ble
Supreme
Court of India in Criminal Appeal
No.2190/2017 in the case of State by the
Inspector of Police, Chennai Vs. S.Selvi and
another
44

15. Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijay Sataredkar and
others reported in AIR 2009 SC 1013

16. Harshendra Kumar D Vs. Rebatilata Koley etc.,
reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1199

17. Unreported judgment of the Hon’ble High Court
of
Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench, delivered on
27.8.2015 in Tulsiram Vs. The State by Police
Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha Police
Station,
Bidar

18. Uday Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in AIR 2003 SC 1639

19. Unreported judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of
India in Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs. State
of Bihar delivered on 3.11.2004

20. Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
reported in AIR 2013 SC 2753 dated 23.1.2013

21. Sanganna Vs. State by Wadi Police Station
reported in 2014(1) Kar.L.J.164

22. State by Circle Inspector of Police, Brahmavar
Circle Vs. Vishwanatha Poojary reported in
2014(1) Kar.L.J.111 (DB)

23. Md. Ali Alias Guddu Vs. State of U.P.
45

reported in 2015 AIR SCW 1711

24. Tilak Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
reported in AIR 2016 SC 406

25. Judgment/Order dated 6.4.2018 passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Shivashankar alias Shiva Vs. State of
Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.504/2018

26. Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another
reported in (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986

27. Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and
others
reported in 2013 Crl.L.J. 754

28. State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu
reported in 2017(2) Supreme 155

29. Mauvin Godinho Vs. State of Goa
reported in 2018(2) Supreme 122

30. Judgment dated 6.5.1976 of the Hon’ble
Supreme
Court of India in the case of R.C.Sharma Vs.
Union of India and others

31. Judgment dated 6.8.2001 of the Hon’ble
Supreme
Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.389/1988
in the case of Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar
46

32. Judgment dated 11.4.1994 of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.2498/1994 in the case
of Kunwar Singh and others Vs. Sri Thakurji
Maharaj

11. Learned Senior Advocate Sri. Ashok

Haranahalli representing accused Nos.4 and 6 in

Crl.R.P. No.224/2018 submitted that perusing the

entire charge sheet material, there is no prima facie

case made out as against accused Nos.4 and 6. The

main allegations are against the other accused

persons and not against accused Nos.4 and 6.

Learned Senior Advocate drew attention of this Court

to page Nos.232, 214 and 207 of the material

produced along with the petition and submitted that

so far as non disclosure agreement is concerned,

even if it is alleged as against accused No.6 that on

behalf of the Ashram of accused No.1, accused No.6

alleged to have obtained the non disclosure

agreements from the disciples, but the non disclosure
47

agreements are nothing to do as the entire case is

different.

It is also submitted by the learned Senior

Advocate that accused No.6 being a woman, the

charges levelled against her for the offences under

Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC are not at all made

applicable. Hence, he submitted that there is no

prima facie material for framing the charge against

accused Nos.4 and 6 and hence, the petition be

allowed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge

rejecting their application filed under Section 227 of

the Cr.P.C. be set aside by allowing the said

application.

In support of his contentions, learned Senior

Advocate has relied upon the following decisions:
48

1. K.R.Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala
reported in (2005) 12 SCC 631 (para 13)

2. Gulam Sarbar Vs. State of Bihar
reported in (2014)3 SCC 401 (para 11)

3. Ram Saran Mahto another Vs. State of Bihar
reported in (1999)9 SCC 486 (para 11)

4. A.N.Narayanaswamy another Vs. State of
Karnataka by Rural Police, Chikkaballapur
Taluk reported in ILR 2015 KAR 2713 (para12)

5. Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and
another reported in (1979)3 SCC 4 (para 10)

6. Priya Patel Vs. State of MP and another
reported in (2006) 6 SCC 263 (para 8)

7. Afrahim Sheik and others Vs. State of West
Bengal reported in AIR 1964 SC 1263 (para 6)

8. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special
Judicial Magistrate and others reported in
(1998) 5 SCC 749 (para 26, 29 30).

12. Learned Senior Advocate Smt. Pramila

Nesargi, submitted that so far as Ms. Ranjitha is

concerned, she is totally unconnected with the

alleged offences. Unnecessarily, she has been

dragged into these cases falsely alleging that she is
49

the victim of the case and she has already filed an

application before the Learned Sessions Judge for

taking action as prayed for in her application. But

even then, her application is not at all considered.

13. Per contra, learned SPP-II Sri Sandesh J.

Chouta, in his submission that so far as the

documents said to have been collected for the

treatment of the victim at America, drew the attention

of this Court page No.26 of the compilation and

submitted that the couriers from United States have

come directly to the Courts. He also drew the

attention of this Court to the order sheet of the

learned Sessions Judge in this regard and made

submission that those records are not at all produced

by the investigating officer, but some private persons

directly sent them to the Court which is evident from

the order sheet entries maintained by the learned

Sessions Judge. Therefore, he made submission
50

that when those documents were not received from

the investigating officer, that was the reason for the

learned Sessions Judge not to consider those

documents while passing the order on the

applications seeking discharge.

With regard to powers of the revisional Court,

he made submission that normally, the revisional

court will interfere if there is any illegality committed

by the Learned Sessions Judge. Even on the factual

aspect, if the decision taken by the trial Court is

legal, the revisional Court will not interfere with the

said order. It is also his submission that the

revisional Court is having a limited jurisdiction and

he made submission that if there is challenge to the

jurisdiction of the trial Court for passing the orders,

in that case, the revisional Court can interfere for

considering the said aspect of the matter. In the case

on hand, the learned Sessions Judge is having the
51

jurisdiction to consider the application of the accused

and to pass the orders on the application.

Leaned SPP-II also made submission that so far

as accused No.1 is concerned, there is sufficient

material produced by the prosecution to show his

involvement in committing the alleged offences. He

drew the attention of this Court to the non disclosure

agreements and made submission that the disciples

of the Ashram of accused No.1 were not made known

to the contents of the non disclosure agreements and

simply obtained their signatures to such documents

and prevented the witnesses from disclosing the said

facts before anybody. He made further submission

that the statement of the witnesses collected by the

investigating officer during investigation goes to show

prima facie case against all the accused persons

about their involvement in committing the alleged

offences.

52

So far as the application filed by the accused

under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking production of the

documents from the investigation officer, it is

submitted by the learned SPP-II that it came to be

rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and when the

criminal petition was preferred before this Court and

when this Court allowed the said criminal petition

and issued a direction to the concerned trial Court for

issuing summons to the investigation officer for

securing the statement of witnesses, the said order

had been challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Crl. Appeal No.2114/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.)

No.8279/2016 so also Crl. Appeal No.2115/2017

arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1176/2017. The Hon’ble

Apex Court held that the impugned judgment cannot

be sustained and accordingly, the impugned

judgment was set aside as observed in paragraph 10

of the said order.

53

It is also the submission of the learned SPP-II

that even earlier, there were four criminal petitions

filed by the accused persons invoking the jurisdiction

of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to

quash the proceedings initiated against them. On the

said petitions, common order came to be passed on

16.7.2014 dismissing all the four criminal petitions.

When the said order has been challenged by the

accused persons by preferring the SLP (Crl.)

No.5844/2014, 5897/2014, 5900/2014 and SLP

(Crl.) No.6001/2014, the Hon’ble Apex Court by its

order dated 3.9.2014, except quashing the charge

under Section 212 of IPC against accused No.2,

dismissed all the petitions. Learned SPP-II drew the

attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs in

the order dated 3.9.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Apex

Court. So far as the alleged offence under Section

212 of IPC as against accused No.2 is concerned, he

fairly conceded that the order of the learned Sessions
54

Judge is wrong and to that extent, the petition filed

by accused No.2 may be allowed and the said order of

the learned Sessions Judge to that extent may be set

aside. So far as the other offences against all other

accused persons, he submitted that when the Hon’ble

Apex Court itself has held that there is material

against the accused persons and these are not the

case for quashing the proceedings invoking Section

482 of Cr.P.C. by the High Court, again the

petitioners herein cannot contend that there is no

prima facie material against them.

Learned SPP-II further made submission that

looking to the statement of witnesses collected by the

investigating officer during investigation and more

particularly, the statement of C.W.1, C.W.3 and

C.W.119, C.Ws.8, to 11, they clearly goes to show the

involvement of all the accused in committing the

alleged offences.

55

It is further submitted by learned SPP-II that

while considering the application under Sections 227

and 228 of Cr.P.C., the Court is not suppose to make

a roving enquiry, not to conduct a mini trial at that

stage. The Court has to consider the materials for

the limited purpose that whether the materials show

the grave suspicion that the accused persons have

committed the alleged offences or not.

He made submission that accused No.1 formed

the Trust along with accused Nos.4 and 6 and under

the guise of spiritual enlightenment, he started to

misbehave with the members of the Trust and more

particularly, with female members of the said Trust,

indulged in sexual activities by brain washing the

female members. He made submission that C.W.1

who suspected the activities of accused No.1 about

his involvement in sexual acts with the female

members kept the video recording secretly in the

room of accused No.1 and got the scenes recorded in
56

the video and CDs were produced before the

investigation officer. These materials prima face goes

to show the involvement of the accused in such

criminal activities and there is also criminal

conspiracy by accused No.1 with other accused

persons who aided him in doing such sexual acts.

Therefore, even accused Nos. 2 to 6 are also

responsible for the acts of accused No.1 and they

have committed the said offences.

Learned SPP-II further made submission that

the non disclosure agreements got executed are said

to be entered into between accused No.1 and the

disciples of Ashram and the contents of the said

agreements itself show the involvement of accused

No.1 in the sexual activities. The learned SPP-II drew

the attention of this Court to the contents of the non

disclosure agreements. The contents of those

documents were not made known to the persons who

have executed the said documents. The signatures of
57

the executants were obtained without explaining the

contents to them. It is his contention that even

accused No.1 gone to the extent of taking the

contention that he is impotent, not capable to

perform sexual act, then the prosecution moved an

application seeking permission of the Court for

medical examination of accused No.1 and ultimately

obtained the report in that regard that he is capable

to perform the sexual act. Hence he submitted that

all these materials put together, prima facie, make

out a case about the accused persons committing the

said offences.

Referring to the order of the learned Sessions

Judge, learned SPP-II made submission that he has

referred to all the material and passed a considered

order holding that there is material to frame the

charge against the accused persons. Hence, there is

no illegality committed by the learned Sessions Judge

and therefore, there are no grounds for this Court to
58

interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge.

So far as the submission made by learned

Senior advocate Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned SPP-II

submitted that she is a cine actor and she is not at

all concerned with these petitions and she has not at

all filed any application.

Learned SPP-II drew the attention of this Court

to the laboratory reports at page Nos.267 and 275

and submitted that these medical records are

produced from some persons claim to be members of

the Trust directly sent to the Court. He drew the

attention of this Court to the order sheet entries of

the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that these

documents are not produced by the investigating

officer. Hence, he submitted that who are the persons

who sent those documents directly to the court is

also to be considered during the course of the trial

and not at this stage.

59

It is also the submission of the learned SPP-II

that the petitioners-accused have filed the above

petitions mainly with an intention to drag on the

matter. Even earlier also, the accused persons filed

applications after applications and they are causing

delay in proceeding with the matters which has been

observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble

Apex Court expressed its dissatisfaction in respect of

the matters being not proceeded with. Hence, he

submitted that there is no merit in all the above three

revision petitions and they are liable to be rejected.

In support of his contentions, the learned SPP-II

has relied upon the following decisions:

1. Superintendent Remembrancer of Legal
Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and
others reported in (1979)4 SCC 274

2. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Krishan Lal
Pradhan and others reported in (1987)2 SCC 17

3. Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punajabi Vs.
Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and others reported in
(1990)4 SCC 76
60

4. State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Som
Nath Thapa and others reported in (1996)4 SCC
659

5. State of Maharastra vs. Priya Sharan
Maharaj and Others reported in (1997)4 SCC
393

6. State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and others
reported in (2000)2 SCC 57

7. Om Wati (Smt) And Another Vs. State
through Delhi Admn. And Others reported in
(2001)4 SCC 333

8. State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi
reported in (2005)1 SCC 568

9. Soma Chakravarty vs. State Through CBI
reported in 2007(5) SCC 403

10. Onkar Nath Mishra and others Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2008)2
SCC 561

11. Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in (2010)9 SCC 368

12. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chhotey Lal
reported in (2011)2 SCC 550

13. Amith Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and
Another reported in (2012)9 SCC 460
61

14. Sanjay Sinha Ramrao Chowhan Vs.
Datatreya Gulabrao reported in (2015)3 SCC
123

15. State through Inspector of Police Vs. A.
Arun Kumar and another reported in (2015)2
SCC 417

16. State of U.P. Vs. Noushad reported in
2014 Crl.L.J. 540 SC

17. State by Inspector of Police, Chennai Vs.
S. Selvi and another reported in AIR 2018 SC 81

18. Santosh De and another Vs. Archna Guha
and others reported in (1994)2 SCC 420

19. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd.
and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 310

20. State of Maharastra Vs. Madhukar
Narayan Mardikar reported in (1991)1 SCC 57

21. Suresh Kumar Koushal Vs. Naz
Foundation and others reported in (2014)1 SCC
1

14. In reply to the arguments of learned SPP-II,

learned Senior Advocate Sri C.V. Nagesh made the

submission that so far as the allegation of
62

miscarriage to C.W.3 is concerned, none of the

accused caused miscarriage. In this connection, the

learned Senior Advocate drew the attention of this

Court to Section 312 of IPC and submitted that the

materials collected by way of statement of the

witnesses will not make out the case of the offence

punishable under Section 312 of IPC. He also drew

the attention of this Court to page No.24 of the

statement of C.W.3 regarding pregnancy termination

and on that also, he submitted that no such offence

has been committed. Regarding the extra judicial

confession of accused No.1 alleged to have been made

before the witness Kishan Reddy, the learned Senior

Advocate drew the attention of this Court to the

statement of Kishan Reddy and submitted that the

alleged extra judicial confession by accused No.1 is

made before one Shinde, who is not at all cited as a

charge sheet witness, and not made before the

witness Kishan Reddy.

63

Regarding the contention of the learned SPP-II

that the accused persons filed the above revision

petitions with an intention to drag on the matter and

to cause delay in disposal of the main criminal cases,

the learned Senior Advocate made submission that it

is not the accused who caused the delay but it is the

prosecution which is responsible for the said delay.

15. Learned Senior Advocate Sri Ravi B. Naik

also produced a memo dated 7.3.2018 and he also, in

reply, refers to the statement of witnesses referred in

the memo. He submitted that the statement of the

witnesses and the relevant paragraphs in the said

statements clearly shows the false implication of

accused Nos.3 and 5 and hence, he submitted to set

aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge

as it relates to accused Nos.3 and 5 and discharge

them from the proceedings.

64

16. I have perused the grounds urged in the

above three revision petitions, impugned order of the

learned Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed

under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the entire charge

sheet materials containing the statement of witnesses

and the documents collected by the investigating

officer during investigation. I have also perused the

decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Advocates

and the learned SPP-II, which are referred above. I

have further considered the oral submissions made

by the learned Senior Advocates and also the learned

SPP-II, at the Bar, which is also referred above.

17. So far as the contention of the learned SPP-

II that the revision petitions are filed with an

intention to drag on the matter and to cause delay is

concerned, and also the reply by the learned Senior

advocate that there is no such delay caused by the

accused but it is the prosecution itself caused such
65

delay, I have perused the order of the Hon’ble Apex

Court dated 03.09.2014 in SLP (Crl.) Nos.5844/2014,

5897/2014, 5900/2014 and No.6001/2014. At

paragraph No.22 of the said order, the Hon’ble Apex

Court has observed as under:

” Before parting, we must express our
extreme displeasure about the manner in
which the instant proceedings are dealt
with by the accused as well as the
prosecution. The complaint was registered
in 2010. charge sheet is filed in the year
2010. However, there is no progress in the
case. The prosecution is still require to
conduct further investigation. The accused
are obviously not co-operating with the
investigating agency. Accused No.1 must
subject himself to medical examination.
Objections were raised to the appointment
of the public prosecutor. For a
considerable period, the appointment of the
prosecutor was stayed. We are informed
that now, a new prosecutor is appointed.
We find the approach of the prosecution
also to be lackadaisical. The prosecution
66

must gear up its efforts so that the trial
begins. This case brooks no further delay.
The accused are also expected to co-
operate with the Court or else adverse
inference may have to be drawn against
them. We hope and trust that the
prosecution and the accused co-operate
with the Court so that the trial is
concluded in near future. We make it clear
that if any observations made by us touch
the merits of the case, they are not our
final observations as they are made while
dealing with the prayer made for quashing
of the proceedings. If any applications for
discharge are made, the trial Court shall
deal with them independently and in
accordance with law.”

Therefore, looking to the observations of the Hon’ble

Apex Court, both the prosecution as well as the

accused are responsible for the delay of the

proceedings.

67

18. With regard to the contentions of the

learned SPP-II that while considering the application

under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C., the Court has

to consider only the charge sheet material collected

by the investigation officer during investigation and

the accused cannot produce the documents at that

stage for the consideration of the Court, is concerned,

I have perused the decisions produced on both sides,

which are referred above.

The decision of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in case of STATE OF ORISSA VS.

DEBENDRA NATH PADHI reported in (2005)1 SCC

568 is relevant for our purpose. Paragraph Nos.8, 15,

16, 18 and 25 of the said decision read as under:

” 8. What is to the meaning of the
expression ‘the record of the case’ as used
in Section 227 of the Code. Though the
word ‘case’ is not defined in the
Code but Section 209 throws light on the
interpretation to be placed on the said
word. Section 209 which deals with the
68

commitment of case to Court of Session
when offence is triable exclusively by it,
inter alia, provides that when it appears to
the Magistrate that the offence is triable
exclusively by the Court of Session, he
shall commit ‘the case’ to the Court of
Session and send to that court ‘the record
of the case’ and the document and articles,
if any, which are to be produced in
evidence and notify the Public Prosecutor of
the commitment of the case to the Court of
Session. It is evident that the record of the
case and documents submitted therewith
as postulated in Section 227 relate to the
case and the documents referred in Section

209. That is the plain meaning of Section
227 read with Section 209 of the Code. No
provision in the Code grants to the accused
any right to file any material or document
at the stage of framing of charge. That right
is granted only at the stage of the trial.

15. In State of Maharashtra v. Priya
Sharan Maharaj and Others [(1997) 4 SCC
393], it was held that at stage, the Court is
required to evaluate the material and
69

documents on record with a view to finding
out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at
their face value disclose the existence of all
the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. The court may, for this limited
purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be
expected even at that initial stage to accept
all that the prosecution states as gospel
truth even if it is opposed to common sense
or the broad probabilities of the case.

16. All the decisions, when they hold
that there can only be limited evaluation of
materials and documents on record and
sifting of evidence to prima facie find out
whether sufficient ground exists or not for
the purpose of proceeding further with the
trial, have so held with reference to
materials and documents produced by the
prosecution and not the accused. The
decisions proceed on the basis of settled
legal position that the material as produced
by the prosecution alone is to be
considered and not the one produced by
the accused. The latter aspect relating to
the accused though has not been
70

specifically stated, yet it is implicit in the
decisions. It seems to have not been
specifically so stated as it was taken to be
well settled proposition. This aspect,
however, has been adverted to in State
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and
Another v. P. Suryaprakasam where
considering the scope of Sections
239 and 240 of the Code it was held that at
the time of framing of charge, what the trial
court is required to, and can consider are
only the police report referred to
under Section 173 of the Code and the
documents sent with it. The only right the
accused has at that stage is of being heard
and nothing beyond that (emphasis
supplied). The judgment of the High Court
quashing the proceedings by looking into
the documents filed by the accused in
support of his claim that no case was made
out against him even before the trial had
commenced was reversed by this Court. It
may be noticed here that learned counsel
for the parties addressed the arguments on
the basis that the principles applicable
71

would be same – whether the case be under
Sections 227 and 228 or under Sections
239 and 240 of the Code.

18. We are unable to accept the
aforesaid contention. The reliance on
Articles 14 and 21 is misplaced. The
scheme of the Code and object with
which Section 227 was incorporated and
Sections 207 and 207 (A) omitted have
already been noticed. Further, at the stage
of framing of charge roving and fishing
inquiry is impermissible. If the contention
of the accused is accepted, there would be
a mini trial at the stage of framing of
charge. That would defeat the object of the
Code. It is well-settled that at the stage of
framing of charge the defence of the
accused cannot be put forth. The
acceptance of the contention of the learned
counsel for the accused would mean
permitting the accused to adduce his
defence at the stage of framing of charge
and for examination thereof at that stage
which is against the criminal
jurisprudence. By way of illustration, it
72

may be noted that the plea of alibi taken by
the accused may have to be examined at
the stage of framing of charge if the
contention of the accused is accepted
despite the well settled proposition that it is
for the accused to lead evidence at the trial
to sustain such a plea. The accused would
be entitled to produce materials and
documents in proof of such a plea at the
stage of framing of the charge, in case we
accept the contention put forth on behalf of
the accused. That has never been the
intention of the law well settled for over one
hundred years now. It is in this light that
the provision about hearing the
submissions of the accused as postulated
by Section 227 is to be understood. It only
means hearing the submissions of the
accused on the record of the case as filed
by the prosecution and documents
submitted therewith and nothing more. The
expression ‘hearing the submissions of the
accused’ cannot mean opportunity to file
material to be granted to the accused and
thereby changing the settled law. At the
73

stage of framing of charge, hearing the
submissions of the accused has to be
confined to the material produced by the
police.

25. Any document or other thing
envisaged under the aforesaid provision
can be ordered to be produced on finding
that the same is ‘necessary or desirable for
the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial
or other proceedings under the Code’. The
first and foremost requirement of the
section is about the document being
necessary or desirable. The necessity or
desirability would have to be seen with
reference to the stage when a prayer is
made for the production. If any document
is necessary or desirable for the defence of
the accused, the question of
invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of
framing of a charge would not arise since
defence of the accused is not relevant at
that stage. When the section refers to
investigation, inquiry, trial or other
proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that
under the section a police officer may move
74

the Court for summoning and production
of a document as may be necessary at any
of the stages mentioned in the section. In
so far as the accused is concerned, his
entitlement to seek order under Section
91 would ordinarily not come till the stage
of defence. When the section talks of the
document being necessary and desirable, it
is implicit that necessity and desirability is
to be examined considering the stage when
such a prayer for summoning and
production is made and the party who
makes it whether police or accused. If
under Section 227 what is necessary and
relevant is only the record produced in
terms of Section 173 of the Code, the
accused cannot at that stage
invoke Section 91 to seek production of any
document to show his innocence.

Under Section 91 summons for production
of document can be issued by Court and
under a written order an officer in charge of
police station can also direct production
thereof. Section 91 does not confer any
right on the accused to produce document
75

in his possession to prove his
defence. Section 91 presupposes that when
the document is not produced process may
be initiated to compel production thereof. ”

19. However, learned Senior Advocate Sri C.V.

Nagesh refers to two decisions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court RUKMINI NARVEKAR VS. VIJAY

SATAREDKAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2009

SC 1013. Paragraph Nos.17 and 18 of the said

decision are as under:

” 17. Thus, in our opinion, while it is
true that ordinarily defence material
cannot be looked into by the Court while
framing of the charge in view of D.N.
Padhi’s case (supra), there may be some
very rare and exceptional cases where
some defence material when shown to the
trial Court would convincingly
demonstrate that the prosecution version
is totally absurd or preposterous and in
such very rare cases, the defence material
76

can be looked into by the Court at the time
of framing of charges or taking cognizance.

18. In our opinion, therefore, it
cannot be said as an absolute proposition
that under no circumstances can the
Court look into the material produced by
the defence at the time of framing of the
charges, though this would be done in very
rare cases, i.e., fairly defence produces
some material which convincingly
demonstrates that the whole prosecution
case is totally absurd or totally concocted.
We agree with Sri Lalith that in some very
rare cases, the Court is justified in looking
into the material produced by the defence
at the time of framing of the charges, if
such material convincingly establishes
that the whole prosecution version is
totally absurd, preposterous or concocted.”

20. In another decision, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in case of HARSHENDRA KUMAR D. Vs.

REBATILATA KOLEY, ETC. reported in 2011 AIR
77

SCW 1199, at paragraph No.22 of the said decision,

has held as under:

” 22. Criminal prosecution is a
serious matter; it affects the liberty of a
person. No greater damage can be done to
the reputation of a person than dragging
him in a criminal case. In our opinion, the
High Court fell into grave error in not
taking into consideration the
uncontroverted documents relating to
appellant’s resignation from the post of
Director of the company. Had these
documents been considered by the High
Court, it would have been apparent that
the appellant has resigned much before the
cheques were issued by the company. As
noticed above, the appellant resigned from
the post of Director on March 2, 2004. The
dishonoured cheques were issued by the
company on April 30, 2004 i.e., much after
the appellant had resigned from the post of
Director of the company. The acceptance
of the appellant’s resignation is duly
reflected in the resolution dates March 2,
2004. Then in the prescribed form (form
78

No.32), the company informed to the
Registrar of Companies on March 4, 2004
about appellant’s resignation. It is not
even the case of the complainant that the
dishonoured cheques were issued by the
appellant. These facts leave no manner of
doubt that on the date the offence was
committed by the company, the appellant
was not the Director; he had nothing to do
with the affairs of the company. In this
view of the matter, if the criminal
complaints are allowed to proceed against
the appellant, it would result in gross
injustice to the appellant and tantamount
to an abuse of process of the Court.”

21. In these cases, the grievance of the revision

petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 is that the medical

records pertaining to C.W.3 issued from University of

Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers at America

and the e-mail conversation between C.W.3 and

C.W.119 though produced before the learned

Sessions Judge were not at all considered by the
79

learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, it is the

contention of the revision petitioners that those

documents were of a sterling quality and hence, in

view of the principle enunciated in the two Division

Bench decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, cited

supra, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have

considered those documents and the documents

were wrongly rejected. In view of the said contention,

I have perused the two Division Bench decisions of

the Hon’ble Apex Court referred above and the

relevant paragraphs in the said decisions so also I

have considered the Full Bench Decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in D.N. Padhi’s case.

22. Now the question is whether the principles

of the two Division Bench decisions of the Hon’ble

Apex Court are made applicable to the facts of the

case on hand.

80

So far as the decision in (2011 AIR SCW 1199)

Harshendra Kumar D’s case is concerned, looking to

the factual aspects, it is observed that the

resignation of the appellant much prior to the

issuance of the cheques by the company was an

admitted fact. But in the case on hand, the

prosecution has not admitted about the documents.

It is the contention of the prosecution that those

documents were not produced before the trial Court

by the investigating officer and those documents were

sent by some private persons to the trial Court

directly through the courier. Therefore, the trial

Court has not considered those documents as

produced by the prosecution and accordingly, the

trial Court has not at all considered those

documents. Regarding another decision (AIR 2009

SC 1013) Rukmini Narvekar’s case is concerned, the

principle enunciated in the said decision by the

Division Bench of the Hon’ble apex Court, is that
81

there may be some rare and exceptional cases where

some defence material shown to the trial Court would

convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution

version is totally absurd or preposterous, but in the

case on hand, the factual matrix compared to the

factual matrix of the said reported decision, are not

exactly one and the same. Apart from that, perusing

the prosecution material collected by way of recording

the statement of witnesses and also the documents

collected during investigation, it cannot be said that

there is no case of the prosecution. Even on earlier

occasion also, when the revision petitioners accused

filed four criminal petitions before this Court seeking

quashing of the proceedings by invoking Section 482

of Cr.P.C., this Court after consideration of the

material dismissed all those four criminal petitions.

Against which, the accused persons preferred SLPs

before the Hon’ble Apex Court and in para No.20 of
82

the order dated 03.09.2014, the Hon’ble Apex Court

has observed as under:

” 20. We have considered the above
submissions advanced by the Counsel for
the accused that no offence is made out
against them in its proper perspective.
Having given our anxious consideration to
this submission and having perused the
material on record, we feel that this is not
a case where the proceedings could be
quashed against the accused except the
charge under section 212 of IPC against
accused No.2 which is done for the
reasons which we have noted hereinabove.
It is not possible for us to accept the
submission that there is no evidence
against the accused.”

23. It is no doubt true that in the very

decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that if

any application for discharge are made, the trial

Court shall deal with them independently and in

accordance with law. When the criminal petitions
83

were filed earlier under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the

High Court was having unlimited jurisdiction

compared to its jurisdiction under Section 227 of

Cr.P.C. while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The

Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court after

perusing the entire materials produced by the

prosecution came to the conclusion that the

contention of the accused that there is no evidence

against the accused person cannot be accepted and

accordingly rejected the petitions and the SLP also

came to be dismissed. Even if perusing the entire

prosecution material, the statement of witnesses and

the documents collected, the learned Sessions Judge

held that there is prima facie case made out by the

prosecution against the accused for the alleged

offences. It is true that though the Hon’ble Apex

Court has set aside the charge under Section 212 of

IPC as against accused No.2, again the learned

Sessions Judge held that there is material to frame
84

charge even under Section 212 of IPC as against

accused No.2. It may be because the learned

Sessions Judge has not correctly read the decision of

the Hon’ble Apex Court so far as the said offence

under Section 212 of IPC as against accused No.2 is

concerned. But only because of that reason and

when the prosecution has placed the prima facie

material as against all the accused persons for the

alleged offences (except the offence under Section

212 of IPC as against accused No.2), it cannot be

said that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is

without mental application.

24. With regard to other contention of the

learned Senior Advocate for accused Nos.1 and 2 that

when the criminal petition was pending before this

Court as against the order of rejection of the

application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., as

directed by this Court to submit the status report,
85

the investigating officer filed an affidavit before this

Court stating that he has recorded the statement of

48 witnesses and also collected some documents

which are in his custody and they are not forming

part of charge sheet. Therefore, this Court issued the

direction to the learned Sessions Judge to issue

summons to the investigating officer seeking

production of those statements and the documents.

Accordingly, the investigating officer produced the

statement of witnesses so also the documents in the

sealed cover. It is the contention that those materials

were not considered by the learned Sessions Judge

while passing the order on the applications filed

under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. In this

connection, it is no doubt true that the learned

Sessions Judge has not perused those statements

and the documents. But, it is an admitted fact that

those materials are not forming the part of charge

sheet filed before the learned Sessions Court. In the
86

order of the learned Sessions Judge, it is observed

that he has perused the charge sheet material. The

order passed by this Court in the criminal petition

when challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the

Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the said order referring

to the decision of the Full Bench of the said Court in

D.N. Padhi’s case. I have already referred to

paragraph No.25 of the said case, wherein Their

Lordships have discussed in detail about the right of

an accused person that whether he can file such an

application seeking production of the documents

invoking Section 91 of Cr.P.C. at the time of framing

of the charge. It has been observed by Their

Lordships that, at that stage, the accused has no

right to move such an application and the Court has

to look into only the charge sheet material for passing

order on the application seeking discharge of the

accused from the proceedings. It is also observed by

Their Lordships, in the said paragraph, that the
87

accused can seek production of the documents under

Section 91 of Cr.P.C. at the time of his defence.

Therefore, while framing of the charge, there is no

question of the accused having defence, at that stage.

In view of the said decision, the Division Bench of the

Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the view taken by

learned Single Judge of this Court stating that it is

contrary to the view taken by the Full Bench of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in D.N. Padhi’s case. The said

statement of 48 witnesses are already in the custody

of the learned Sessions Judge and the accused

persons can take the assistance of those documents

during the course of the trial while setting up of their

defence.

25. It is also the contention of the petitioners-

accused herein that the learned Sessions Judge has

only referred to the statement C.W.3 and C.W.119

and except that, he has not referred to any other
88

materials. But perusing the order of the learned

Sessions Judge, it is not so. He has referred to the

statement of the other witnesses and also the

documents relied upon by the prosecution like

medical records, non disclosure agreements and

other documents. When it is stated by the learned

Sessions Judge that he has perused the charge sheet

materials, only because of the reason that the names

of all the witnesses, who have given the statement,

and the documents collected, have not been

specifically mentioned in the order, that does not

mean that the learned Sessions Judge has not looked

into the said material that too when it is stated in the

order that he has perused the charge sheet material.

26. At the stage of framing of the charge, the

Court cannot look into the truthfulness, veracity of

the case of the prosecution by making a detailed

enquiry, but the Court after considering the materials
89

shall form that whether the said material will give a

strong suspicion that the accused have committed

the said offence or not. Even in the Division Bench

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of SOMA

CHAKRAVARTY Vs. STATE THROUGH CBI reported

in 2007(5) SCC 403, in paragraph No.10 of the said

decision, Their Lordships have observed as under:

“It may be mentioned that the settled
legal position as mentioned in the above
decisions, is that if on the basis of the
material on record, the Court would form
an opinion that the accused might have
committed an offence, it can frame the
charge, though for conviction the
conclusion is required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has
committed the offence. At the time of
framing of the charges, the probative value
of the material on record cannot be gone
into, and the material brought on record
by the prosecution has to be accepted as
true at that stage. Before framing a
charge the court must apply its judicial
90

mind on the material placed on record and
must be satisfied that the commitment of
the offence by the accused was possible.
Whether in fact the accused committed the
offence, can only be decided in the trial. “

27. The respondent-State has also relied upon

another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

CHENNAI VS. S. SELVI AND ANOTHER reported in

AIR 2018 SC 81. In paragraph No.8 of the said

decision, it is observed by Their Lordships as under:

” That at the time of framing of
charges, the probative value of the
material on record has to be gone into and
the Court is not expected to go peep into
the matter and hold that the materials
would not warrant conviction. The Court
is required to evaluate the material on
record at the stage of Section 227 or 239
of Code, as the case may be, only with a
view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at the face value discloses
91

the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. It is trite
that at the stage of consideration of an
application for discharge, the Court has to
proceed with the presumption that the
material brought on record by the
prosecution are true and evaluate such
materials with a view to find out whether
the facts emerging therefrom taken at their
face value disclose existence of the
ingredients of the offence. “

28. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

said decision made it clear that at the time of framing

of the charge, the Court is not suppose to make a

roving enquiry, conducting mini trial. But the Court

has to see whether the materials make out a prima

facie case as against the accused. In this connection,

I am also referring to another decision of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in case of SAJJAN KUMAR VS. CENTRAL

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in (2010)9
92

SCC 368. Paragraph No.24 of the said decision

reads as under:

” At the stage of framing of charge
under Section 228 Cr.P.C. or while
considering the discharge petition filed
under section 227, it is not for the
magistrate or the Judge concerned to
analyze all the materials including the
pros and cons, reliability or acceptability,
etc. It is at the trial, the Judge concerned
has to appreciate their evidentiary value,
credibility or otherwise of the statement,
veracity of various documents and is free
to take a decision one way or the other.”

29. I have also perused the decision relied

upon by the respondent-State in case of STATE OF

MAHARASTRA VS. PRIYA SHARAN MAHARAJ AND

OTHERS reported in (1997)4 SCC 393. Looking to

the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the

factual matrix of the said decision is also similar to

the cases on hand in the above three criminal
93

revision petitions. The said decision is also squarely

made applicable to the facts of these cases.

30. From the statement of witnesses collected

by the investigating officer during investigation, they

show that accused No.5 being Personal Assistant to

accused No.1, she was instrumental in taking the

victim (C.W.3) to the room of accused No.1 under the

guise that she has to clean the said room and after

sending C.W.3 in the said room, accused No.5 went

closing the door. Then accused No.1 asking victim

(C.W.3) to latch the door from inside, told her to come

nearer him and hugged her and he committed the

sexual intercourse on her. This statement goes to

show that like this, at various stages, whenever the

functions of accused No.1 were organized in India as

well as at abroad, in all those places, he used to have

the sexual intercourse with the victim girl. While
94

arguing the case on behalf of accused Nos.1 and 2,

the learned Senior Advocate though contended that

there was no sexual intercourse by accused No.1 with

C.W.3 and even if there was any such sexual

intercourse, it was because of consent. In this

regard, it can be said that if the consent is obtained

under the undue influence, it cannot be said to be

the free consent of a victim girl. There are some

persons who are said to be in a dominating position

over the will of another. So undue influence is

working in between them as the one is in dominating

position. For example teacher-student, principal-

agent, master-servant, spiritual guru-disciple, etc.

Therefore, the spiritual guru is always in the

dominating position over the will of the disciple. In

this connection, I am referring to the decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in case of STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH Vs. CHHOTEY LAL reported in (2011)2
95

SCC 550. Paragraph No.17 of the said decision read

as under:

” This Court in a long line of cases
has given wider meaning to the word
‘consent’ in the context of sexual offences
as explained in various judicial
dictionaries. In Jowitt’s dictionary of
English Law (Second Edn.) volume-I (1977)
at p.422, the word ‘consent’ has been
explained as an act of reason accompanied
with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in
a balance, the good or evil on either side.
It is further stated that consent supposes
three things – a physical power, a mental
power; and free and serious use of them
and if consent be obtained by intimidation,
force, meditated imposition,
circumvention, surprise, or undue
influence, it is to be treated as delusion
and not as a deliberate and free act of the
mind. ”

Therefore, if the consent is obtained on account of

such vitiating factor or the influence, then it cannot
96

be said to be a free consent of a person to the said

act. The prosecution materials collected also show

that by taking the non disclosure agreements, the

disciples were warned not to disclose whatever that

was happening in the Ashram, to others. The

materials further show that when C.W.1 suspected

the activities of accused No.1, he kept the video

recorder in the room of accused No.1 and recorded

sexual acts of accused No.1 which has been collected

by the investigating officer during investigation. The

statement of witnesses would show that after coming

to know about the same, accused No1 assaulted

C.W.1, slapped on the cheeks of C.W.1 and even he

torn some of the non disclosure agreements in anger.

There is also material to show that after coming to

know that some of the accused arrested by the police,

accused No.1 absconded. These material aspects

were considered by the learned Sessions Judge while
97

passing the impugned order and in coming to

conclusion that there is a prima facie case.

31. Therefore, unless and until, there are

glaring defects in the order of the learned Sessions

Judge, this Court cannot interfere in the said order in

a routine manner as the jurisdiction of a revisional

Court is limited. In this connection, I am referring to

the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of OM

WATI (SMT) AND ANOTHER VS. STATE THROUGH

DELHI ADMN. AND OTHERS reported in (2001)4

SCC 333. Head Note-C of the said decision reads as

under:

” C. Criminal Procedure Code 1973 –
Ss.227, 228 and 401 – High Court should
not ordinarily interfere with trial Court’s
order for framing of charge unless there is
a glaring injustice – High Court’s
interference at that stage may encourage
unscrupulous persons to protract trial and
prevent culmination of criminal case
98

which would amount to abuse of process
of the Court – where trial Court by a well
reasoned order directed framing of charges
for murder, held, High Court in revision
was not justified in quashing that order by
a cryptic non speaking order.”

32. I am referring to another decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in case of AMITH KAPOOR Vs.

RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER reported in

(2012)9 SCC 460. Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the

said decision reads as under:

” 12. Section 397 of the Code vest the
Court with the power to call for and
examine the records of an inferior Court for
the purposes of satisfying itself as to the
legality and regularity of any proceedings or
order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or
an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to
be a well founded error and it may not be
appropriate for the Courts to scrutinize the
orders, which upon the face of it bears a
99

token of careful consideration and appear
to be in accordance with law. If one looks
into the various judgments of this Court, it
emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can
be invoked where the decisions under
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no
compliance with the provisions of law, the
finding recorded is based on no evidence,
material evidence is ignored or judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
perversely. These are no exhaustive
classes, but are merely indicative. Each
case would have to be determined on its
own merits.

13. Another well accepted norm is
that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher
Court is a very limited one and cannot be
exercised in a routine manner. One of the
inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be
against an interim or interlocutory order.
The Court has to keep in mind that the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself
should not lead to injustice ex-facie.
Whether the Court is dealing with the
question as to whether the charge has been
100

framed properly and in accordance with
law in a given case, it may be reluctant to
interfere in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction unless the case substantially
forms within the categories afore-stated.
Even framing of charge is a much advanced
stage in the proceedings under the Cr.P.C.”

33. Looking to the entire materials so also the

order of the learned Sessions Judge and the legal

position, I am of the opinion that except the mistake

of the Court in framing charge for the offence under

Section 212 of IPC as against accused No.2, which is

liable to be set aside, the rest of the order holds good.

The revision petitioners have not made out a case to

allow their case as prayed for.

34. The submission of the learned Senior

Advocate Smt. Pramila Nesargi before this Court is

that her client Ms. Ranjitha has been wrongly

mentioned as the victim of the case and she has filed
101

the application before the learned Sessions Judge.

The above three revision petitions are filed by

accused Nos.1 to 6 challenging the order of the

learned Sessions Judge rejecting their applications

under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. seeking their

discharge from the proceedings. Therefore, the

question of considering the submission of the learned

Senior Advocate Smt. Pramila Nesargi so far as her

client Ms. Ranjitha is concerned, it will not arise for

consideration in these revision petitions.

35. Hence, I proceed to pass the following

order:

Crl.R.P. No.240/2018 filed by accused Nos.1

and 2 is allowed in part only to the extent of the order

of learned Sessions Judge for framing charge under

Section 212 of IPC as against accused No.2 and the

said revision petition for the rest of the order is

dismissed, so also Crl.R.P. No.211/2018 preferred by
102

accused Nos.3 and 5 and Crl.R.P. No.224/2018

preferred by accused Nos.4 and 6 are hereby

dismissed.

Office is directed to send back the original

records immediately to the concerned trial Court by

deputing one responsible officer of the High Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cs/-