The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition filed to set aside an order denying the petitioner's discharge in a criminal trial involving forgery and assault. We held that with contrary eye-witness testimony, the matter requires full trial.
Criminal Revision Petition No.371/2022 dismissed. Interlocutory application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.371/2022
BETWEEN
SRI RUDRAMUNI S/O LATE PUTTA VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O NAGOLI VILLAGE, ARAKERE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K P BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SMT SHUBHA K S W/O SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O NO.796/5, MARUTI NILAYA 5TH CROSS, SANJEEVINI NAGAR S K S LAYOUT, 2ND FACE DAVANAGERE-577001
2 . SRI SRIDHAR A P S/O LATE PUTTAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O NAGOLI VILLAGE ARAKERE -577201 BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
2
(AMENDED V/O DATED 30.03.2022)
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R3)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 RW SECTION 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2021 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1289/2016 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SHIVAMOGGA AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
that the complainant is the wife of accused No.1. On
3
17.06.2014, accused No.1 created the document in respect of the vehicle pertains of CW1 and took Activa two wheeler document and forged the signature of CW1 and got transferred the vehicle to his name. When CW1 on 17.06.2014 at around 10.30 a.m was proceeding in front of RTO along with CW2, 3 and 4, this petitioner along with accused No.1 wrongfully restrained him and abused in a filthy language and caused life threat. Hence, the complaint was registered. Based on the complaint, police have registered the case and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4
the Trial Court stating that accused No.2 cannot be discharged since there is a prima facie case against him.
5
would submit that CW5 and 6 are also the eye-witnesses. In terms of the contents of the complaint, they are the interested witnesses and prayed to dismiss the application.
6
does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed
of.
Sd/JUDGE
SN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision petition should be dismissed when the Trial Court has taken cognizance against the accused and eye Witnesses support the prosecution view.
Whether the alleged lack of prima facie case against the petitioner warrants setting aside the Trial Court's order in a discharge application.
Whether uncorroborated testimony of the petitioner regarding absence from the scene is sufficient to quash the proceedings before a full trial.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Rudramuni
Smt Shubha K S
Sri Sridhar A P S
The State of Karnataka
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
