Dismissed

Sri C S Tyagarajan v. Sri B S Laxmipathy

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2022CRL.RP/336/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bengaluru HC dismissed a criminal revision petition against a conviction for Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The High Court held that the Appellate Court correctly set aside the Section 506 conviction due to lack of material regarding threats, while the Section 504 conviction for abuse stood confirmed.

What did the court decide?

The Revision Petition is dismissed. The I.A. for suspension of sentence and bail is disposed of.

Sri C S Tyagarajan Vs Sri B S Laxmipathy — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.336/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI C.S.TYAGARAJAN S/O LATE C. SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION COURT COMPLEX CHITRADURGA CITY CHITRADURGA-577501 … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI JAGAN MOHAN M.T., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI B.S.LAXMIPATHY S/O SINGADAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS LECTURER IN SOCIOLOGY PRESENTLY WORKING IN KALPATHARU PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE KITTADAL VILLAGE (AT AND POST) MATHODU HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577533. … RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED

¶13

¶14

30.06.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHITRADURGA IN C.C.NO.140/2014 AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.38/2018.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This matter is listed for admission along with

¶18

I.A.No.1/2022 for suspension of sentence and bail.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶20

petitioner.

¶21

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that the complainant was subjected to

¶22

abuse and threat by the petitioner herein when the mediation proceedings was taking place abused in a filthy language as bastard and also made an attempt to assault him. Hence, a private complaint was filed before the Trial Court. After filing the complaint the sworn statement of the complainant and two witnesses were examined. Thereafter, taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 504, 506 read with

¶23

¶24

Section 34 of IPC. Thereafter, this petitioner was secured before the Trial Court and other accused persons were also secured.

¶25

The complainant in order to prove the case examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P5. The petitioner/accused has not led any defense evidence before the Trial Court.

¶26

The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC and Rs.3,000/for an offence punishable under Section 506(1) of IPC. In default to payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month in each offence. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.38/2018 before the Appellate Court.

¶27

The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence for an offence punishable under Section 506(1) of IPC and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence for an offence punishable

¶28

¶29

under Section 504 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the conviction and confirmation, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

¶30

The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that the Trial Court has committed a serious error in not considering the material on record and the complainant colluding with the mediator and his relative Ramachandrappa, a false complaint was filed. The Appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the conviction and sentence for an offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. The act of mediator in the said case is against the law and the mediator duty is to settle the matter

¶31

between the parties, at the same time he voluntarily deposed before the Court against the petitioner and the same is contrary to each other and also both the Courts have not considered the same and accepted unworthy evidence available on record. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶33

and on perusal of the material available on record, particularly,

¶34

¶35

in C.C.No.140/2014, the Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence of PWs.1 to 3 in paragraph No.17, taken note of this petitioner abused the complainant and threatened that he would see how he would work and asked him to come out and taken note of the evidence of P.W.3, who is an important witness. P.W.3 also deposed in consonance with the evidence of P.W.2. No doubt, P.W.2, admittedly a relative of the complainant and also taken note of just because he is a relative, his evidence cannot be discarded. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 is consistent with the evidence of PWs.1 and 3. It is also observed that nothing is elicited from him to discredit his version.

¶36

8. Taking into note of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and

¶37

also the documentary evidence in paragraph No.21 accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506(1) of IPC. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence available on record in paragraph No.16 extracted the evidence of P.W.3 and also extracted the evidence of P.W.2 and in paragraph No.17

¶38

¶39

also taken note of the filthy language, which was used by this petitioner and the same is also extracted in page No.15 of the judgment of the Appellate Court .

¶40

Having considered the evidence available on record and scrutinizing the material on record and also on careful observation comes to the conclusion that no material is found with regard to the offence punishable under Section 506(1) of IPC. But there is no any error on the part of the Trial Court in convicting the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, since the word used to the complainant in a filthy language is extracted in the order also.

¶41

Having considered the material available on record and on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court rightly set aside the conviction for an offence punishable under Section 506(1) IPC since no material with regard causing of threat and only considered the abuse made by this petitioner and the same is reiterated by other witnesses – PWs.2 and 3. When such being the factual aspects of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to issue notice against the

¶42

¶43

respondent since there is a concurrent finding and both the Courts have given anxious consideration to the evidence available on record and particularly with regard to the abuse is concerned i.e., the word, which was used as deposed by P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 and P.W.3 has been considered and no grounds to admit the revision petition.

¶44

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶45

following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶48

In view of the dismissal of the main petition, the I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

cp*

Sri C S Tyagarajan v. Sri B S Laxmipathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C S Tyagarajan v. Sri B S Laxmipathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan @ Narayana Murthi Vs Smt Bharathi B S

William Rebello Vs Devi Prasad Shetty

Sri Vinod @ Vinod Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Master Pavan S Vs State of Karnataka

Sridhar S Vs State of Karnataka

K M Chandrashekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka