A High Court judge allowed a criminal revision petition challenging a discharge order. The court held that charge-sheet material prima facie established abduction with intent to wrongfully confine the victim in a car, justifying trials under Section 365 IPC.
IMPUGNED ORDER SET ASIDE AND DISCHARGE APPLICATION DISMISSED
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.
CRL.RP No. 56 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.56 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY .H S/O. SHRI HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.50, 4TH CROSS, KIRLOSKAR FOUNDARY, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU – 560 022. ... PETITIONER (BY MRS. P.V. KALPANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CRL.RP No. 56 of 2023
(BY MR. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5; MRS. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2022 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-67) IN CRL.RP.NO.630/2022 DISCHARGING THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 365 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.R.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 (1) read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by the defacto complainant challenging the order dated 20.12.2022 passed in Crl. RP No.630/2020 by the LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
also learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
On 22.09.2018, the accused persons assaulted the defacto complainant’s elder brother's son by name Maruthi and forcibly abducted him in a Rangerover Car belonging to accused No.1 and this incident was informed by one Tejas Appu-C.W.2, to the complainant over mobile phone, who immediately came to the spot i.e., Ambedkar Bhavan, Bengaluru from where Maruthi was abducted by the accused persons. The defacto complainant enquired about the incident with C.W.2, Ugesh-C.W.5 and others, who were present in the spot and thereafter, he called Maruthi over his mobile phone, who informed him that he was abducted by the accused and was also assaulted by them. Accused No.1 snatched the phone from Maruthi while the complainant was speaking to him and threatened the
CRL.RP No. 56 of 2023
complainant with dire consequences to his life. Immediately thereafter, the complainant rushed to High Grounds Police Station, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru and lodged the complaint. Based on the said complaint, FIR was registered against the accused persons in Crime No.133/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 325, 342, 363, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
sheeted offences and a case was registered against the accused persons in C.C.No.20193/2019. In the said
proceedings, the accused had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court to discharge them for the offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 24.11.2022. As against said order, the accused had filed a criminal revision petition before the LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The said revision petition was allowed on 20.12.2022 and the accused were discharged for the offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC. Challenging the order passed in Crl.R.P. No.630/2022, the defacto complainant has preferred this revision petition.
CRL.RP No. 56 of 2023
learned Sessions Judge was not justified in allowing the
criminal revision petition.
learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material on record.
CRL.RP No. 56 of 2023
“365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person.— Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
alleged to have assaulted the victim-C.W.6 between 10.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. on 22.09.2018 near Ambedkar
Bhavan and forcibly took him in the Rangerover car belonging to accused No.1. With regard to this incident the petitioners had filed a complaint before police, who had registered an FIR against accused and thereafter called victim and accused No.1 over their mobile phones. By then, the accused who had abducted the victim in the car had reached Rajarajeshwari Nagar and in the meanwhile, the victim who was confined in the car by the accused persons was assaulted by them.
“362. Abduction.— Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means, induces any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.”
CRL.RP No. 56 of 2023
“340. Wrongful confinement.— Whoever
wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.”
a car belonging to accused No.1 and thereby, he was restrained or prevented from proceeding beyond circumscribing limits and therefore, it is very clear that the victim was wrongfully confined by the accused in the car in which he was abducted. To prove the charge of wrongful confinement proof of actual physical obstruction is not essential. If the act of accused persons makes the victim to reasonably believe that he is not free to move and that he would be forthwith restrained if he attempted to do so, would suffice to attract the offence which is punishable under Section 342 of IPC. But if a person is abducted with intention to secretly and wrongfully confine him, then the said act attracts the offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC. The material on record would go to show that the
CRL.RP No. 56 of 2023
accused had forcibly taken the victim in their car. There were many other persons who were present on the spot and the prosecution has recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and also under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The accused persons had not informed anyone of them as to where they were taking the victim in their car and had forced the victim to sit inside the car. Even the defacto complainant was not aware of the whereabouts of the victim at the time of lodging the complaint nor the police were aware of the whereabouts of the victim, when the FIR was registered. It is only during the course of investigation, the police had contacted the accused and the victim over mobile and had asked the accused to bring back the victim to the police station and in compliance of said directions by the police, the accused had brought the victim and produced him before the police.
the accused persons who had abducted and kept victim in wrongful confinement had also assaulted him inside the
car while he was taken from Ambekdar Bhavan to Rajarajeshwari Nagar and for the injury suffered by the victim as a result of the assault, the victim had taken treatment in a Hospital.
ORDER
ii. The order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in criminal revision petition No.630/2022 is set-aside and consequently, the application filed by the accused before the Trial Court in C.C. No.20913/2019 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
MBM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Sessions Judge erred in discharging the accused for the offence under Section 365 of IPC regarding wrongful confinement.
Whether the material on record prima facie attracted the offence of kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person.
Whether proof of actual physical restraint is essential to prove wrongful confinement under Section 340 of IPC.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Krishnamurthy .H
The State of Karnataka
Mr. Vijay Kumar B.R.
Prasad K.J.
Mani .B
Prasad Kumar .R
S Vishvajith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
