Karnataka High Court The State Of Karnataka vs Yogananda on 28 March, 2014Author: Pradeep D.Waingankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1577 OF 2010 BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TAVAREKERE P.S.
(BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, H.C.G.P.) AND:
AGED 27 YEARS
AGED 69 YEARS
AGED 60 YEARS
AGED 43 YEARS
5. BAGHYA @ BHAGAYAMMA
AGED 60 YEARS
AGED 62 YEARS
AGED 55 YEARS
SL. NOS. 1 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF KUPPUR
AGED 50 YEARS
AGED 52 YEARS
AGED 37 YEARS
SL.NOS. 8 TO 10 ARE RESIDENTS OF 3
(BY SRI B. M. SHYAM PRASAD, ADV.) ——–
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISCHARGE DATED 10-8- 2010 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-II, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN S.C. NO.106/2010, BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.R.P.
THIS CRL.RP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
This revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred against an order dated 10-8-2010 in S.C. No.106/2010 on the file of Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, whereby accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 have been discharged.
2. One Miss Sumaleela, the daughter of the complainant-Thimmaiah had come to Bangalore to attend the written test for the post of Women Police Constable. 4
At that time, one Yogananda who was working as Police Constable from her village came in contact with her and that they developed love affairs. Yogananda took her to Dharmastala on 3-9-2008 and married her without the consent of the complainant. After the marriage, they lived in Jai Maruthinagara of Nandini Layout, Bangalore and from there, they shifted to Laggere where they stayed for six months. After sometime, complainant presented a golden mangalya chain, ear studs and blessed the couple, even though he was not happy with the marriage. After few months, the parents of Yogananda went to Bangalore and started demanding dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- alleging that no dowry was given at the time of marriage. The complainant, father of the girl gave an amount of Rs.20,000/- as dowry. Even then, the parents of Yogananda were not satisfied. They further started harassing Sumaleela and forced her to bring more dowry from her parents. In that connection, a complaint was 5
lodged to Mahila Sahayavani and thereby, Yogananda deserted Sumaleela and he started giving her threatening call to commit her murder by throwing acid on her face. In that connection, a complaint was also lodged to the police and the police were in search of Yogananda. At that time, the daughter of the complainant was residing in the house of her uncle-Doddagowda. In order to trace Yogananda and his parents, the police wanted the help of Sumaleela. Therefore, the complainant and his brother- Doddagowda brought the police to the house of Doddagowda to take Sumaleela. When they knocked the door, they found it was locked from inside. They broke upon the door and found Sumaleela committed suicide by hanging with her saree while she was alone in the house of her uncle. She committed suicide on account of ill- treatment, harassment meted out to her by Yogananda and her in-laws and others. As such, a complaint came to be filed by the father of the deceased against ten accused 6
persons including Yogananda and his parents for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police after investigation have filed charge-sheet against ten persons namely, Yogananda, Shivanna, Rangamma, Gopalaiah, Bhagya @ Bhagyamma, Nanjudaiah, Parvathamma, Moodalappa, Shivamma and Mangalamma before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District. Since the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the accused were committed to the Sessions Court in S.C. No.106/2010. The Sessions Judge heard the accused before framing of the charge. By impugned order dated 10-8-2010 accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 have been discharged on the ground that there is no prima-facie material to frame charges against them. Aggrieved by the order of discharge of accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, State has preferred this 7
revision petition questioning the legality and correctness of the order of discharge.
3. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for the respondents/accused. Perused the records.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that though there is prima-facie material on record, accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 have been discharged without assigning proper reasons and hence, learned High Court Government Pleader sought to set- aside the order of discharge of accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9 and
5. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused on the other hand submitted that there is absolutely no material to proceed against accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 and rightly for the said reason they have been discharged by the impugned order by assigning proper reason and 8
this revision petition filed one year after framing of the charge is devoid of merits and hence, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
6. It is seen from the impugned order that the order came to be passed on 10-8-2010. This revision petition is preferred on 30-12-2010 after framing of the charges. Against the other accused, the trial went on, inasmuch as, twelve witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution as P.W.1 to P.W.12. I have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and also gone through the deposition of all the twelve witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution as P.W.1 to P.W.12. Except P.W.1-Thimmaiah-the complainant, no other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have attributed anything against accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. The Sessions Judge in his order also observed that nothing has been attributed against accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. After all, they are stranger to the family of 9
the accused No.1 and after all, accused No.1 was married Sumaleela without informing her parents and when he took Sumaleela to his house, the parents of accused No.1 started demanding dowry and in that connection she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment and thereby, the relationship have become strained which ultimately forced Sumaleela to commit suicide by hanging herself. If at all, for the suicide committed by the Sumaleela, accused No.1 and his parents are to be held responsible. The allegations made by the complainant that accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 instigated accused No.1 and his parents to harass Sumaleela appears to be baseless. Therefore, the Sessions Judge upon going through the entire material placed on record by the prosecution has ordered to frame the charges against accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 against whom there is enough material to proceed while discharging the other accused. I do not find 10
any merit in this revision petition filed on behalf of the State. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/-