Criminal Revision Petitioner sought setting aside discharge order, alleging false implication. Court rejected plea, holding specific allegations against petitioner based on witness statements were sufficient and Trial Court had no error.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:10241 CRL.RP No. 129 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 129 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
ALSO AVAILABLE AT SUBRAMANYAN NAGAR, PWD OFFICE ROAD, TURUVEKERE TOWN, TUMKUR-570016.
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.012.2021 PASSED IN C.C.NO.239/2018 DIRECTING FRAMING OF CHARGES AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR AN OFFENCE WHICH ARE MADE PENAL MADE PENAL UNDER SEC.504 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TUMAKURU AND ORDER HIS DISCHARGE IN THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
allowing the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C to discharge the accuse for all the offences. This revision petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3. The Trial Court allowed the application in part in respect of all the accused Nos.1 to 5 for offences punishable under Section 417 and 420 of I.P.C. The accused No.5 has also discharged for the offence punishable under Section 504 R/w Section 34 of I.P.C and also Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
NC: 2024:KHC:10241 CRL.RP No. 129 of 2023
for the revision petitioner in this revision petition that the Trial Court committed an error in not discharging this revision petitioner and this revision petitioner is a married sister and only an omnibus allegation is made against the petitioner and not disputed the facts of engagement and also the marriage date is fixed and also having given the advance for the marriage. The counsel only contend that this revision petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and she has not played any role. Only with an intention to falsely implicate her in the complaint as well as in statement of witnesses, the same has been referred. Hence, this Court can exercise the revisional powers.
Krishnappa, all of them have referred the role played by this Court in engaging her marriage and also the demand made by all the family members and also when the complainant and their family members could not able to meet their demand, the marriage was cancelled. Thereafter, complaint was given along with all documents for having made the arrangements of the marriage, the same has taken note of by the Trial Court.
and also the counsel appearing for the respondent –State and also looking into the averments made in the complaint, specific allegation is also made against this petitioner that all of them have made the demand to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as cash and also 600 grams of gold and witnesses who have made the statement before the I.O also re-iterated the averments of complaint in their statement and apart from that specific allegation is also made that when the complaint was given this petitioner also went to Police Station but did not bring the bride groom and also the specific allegation is made in the
statement also that when all of them went to the house of the witnesses and made demand. When such specific allegations are made with regard to role played by this revision petitioner and the very contention of the revision petitioner that only omnibus allegation is made against this revision petitioner and she is married sister of bride groom cannot be accepted. The Trial Court having taken note of material available on record, rightly allowed the application in part for the offences, when the Court found no ingredients of certain offences. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in allowing the application in part. The Trial Court also in paragraph No.11 discussed the allegations made in the compliant and also participation of accused No.3 also along with other accused Nos.1 to 4 and also taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment which are referred in paragraph No.12. Having considered the material available on record, reasoned order has been passed and rightly comes to the conclusion that it requires full fledged trial and charges leveled against accused Nos.1 to 4 considering the
statement of witnesses and allegation made in the complaint. Hence, I do not find any merit to interfere with
the order of the Trial Court.
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court committed an error in not discharging the revision petitioner who is accused of forging marriage or dowry.
Whether the Trial Court reasonably found that the revision petitioner was falsely implicated or played a specific role in the case.
Whether the revisional court can interfere with the discharge order passed by the Trial Court in part.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sushma K.
State of Karnataka by Women's Police Station Tumkur represented by the SPP High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001
H.P. Sannideesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
