SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

The State Of Karnataka vs Anshu Teri on 15 October, 2019








The State of Karnataka
By Bharathinagar Police
Bengaluru, represented by
State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru – 560005.
… Petitioner
(By Sri. Tejas, HCGP)


1. Anshu Teri
S/o S K Teri
Aged about 51 years
R/at 155/10
FMME Military Quarters
St. John’s Road

2. Sudharshan Kumar Teri
S/o Late S N Teri
Aged about 71 yeas

3. Smt. Saroja
W/o Sudharshan Kumar Teri
Aged about 68 years

Respondents No.3 and 4 are
R/at No.K20, Income Tax Colony
Tank Road, Durgapura
Jaipura, Rajasthan – 302018.
… Respondents

(By Sri. Siji Malayil, Advocate for R-1 to R-3)

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, praying to set aside the judgment passed
by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore in S.C. No. 1541/2013 dated 21.12.2015
discharging the Respondents of the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 r/w 34 of
SectionIPC and dismiss the application filed by the
Respondent No.1 to 4 (Accused No.1 to 4) under
Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and allow the above Crl. RP.

This Criminal Revision Petition Coming on for
Admission, this day, the court made the following:


Heard learned HCGP for the State and learned

counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition is preferred by the State

challenging the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by

the Court below in S.C.No.1541/2013 discharging

the respondents/accused Nos.2 to 4 of the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, Section306 read with

Section 34 of IPC.

3. The factual matrix of the petition is that the

accused persons alleged to have given physical and

mental harassment to the deceased due to which she

committed suicide. Accused No.1 is the son of the

deceased and he was addicted to bad vises and due

to that influence, he used to abuse the deceased by

saying as to go and die. Accused No.2 is the husband

and Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the in-laws of the

deceased. The deceased is said to have suffering

from mental disease as a result of which she has

jumped from the building and committed suicide.

Subsequent to the death of the deceased, based upon

the report filed by her brother, the case initially was

registered as UDR and subsequent to recording of

statement of witnesses during the course of inquest

proceeding over the dead body, crime came to be

registered. Subsequently, the case was taken up for

investigation by the IO and the IO laid the

chargesheet before the committal court.

Consequently, the committal court passed an order

committing the case to the Court of Sessions for trial

and accordingly, S.C.No.1541/2013 was registered

and pending before the CCH-46 for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A and Section306 read with

Section 34 of IPC.

4. Accused Nos.1 to 4 entered appearance

through their counsel and filed an application under

Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge from the offences

leveled against them. The trial Court by order dated

21.12.2015 partly allowed the said application

discharging Accused Nos.2 to 4 and rejected the

application in respect of accused No.1.Hence, this

petition by the State.

5. Learned HCGP for the State and learned

counsel for the respondents submit that the case in

S.C.No.1541/2013 is in progress and considerable

statements of witnesses have been recorded and so

also, relevant documents have been got exhibited on

the part of the prosecution. But however, accused

Nos.2 to 4 have been discharged from the offences

leveled against them as there is no specific overt act

attributed against them and the same is based upon

the charge sheet laid by the IO. But the trial Court

held that there is prima facie case made out against

accused No.1 who is said to be the son of deceased

so as to attract the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, Section306 of IPC. Therefore, it is deemed

proper at this stage no detail discussion is required

while considering the present petition.

6. It is relevant to refer that when the case in

SC No.1541/2013 is under process for facing of trial

of accused No.1 and considerable evidence has been

let in, this petition does not hold any substance for

intervention of the impugned order passed by the

trial Court.

7. In terms of the aforesaid reasons and

findings, I am of the considered opinion that this

petition deserves to be rejected, and accordingly

rejected. Consequently, the order dated 21.12.2015

passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.1541/2013

insofar as it relates to discharging accused Nos.2 to

4, is hereby confirmed.

8. As the matter is of the year 2013, the trial

Court is directed to expedite the matter in respect of

Accused No.1 and shall dispose of the entire case

within an outer limit of four months from the date of

receipt of copy of this order. The trial Court shall give

an opportunity to both the parties to proceed with

the matter, in accordance with law.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation