Mr Vishwajith Gourav Vs State of Karnataka by Begur P.S

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:35292 CRL.RP No. 1282 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1282 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR VISHWAJITH GOURAV, S/O DEO KUMAR GUPTHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15, CHANNAKESHAVA LAOUT, VALEPURA COLONY,VARTHUR POST, BANGALORE-560087.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MS VANDANA P L, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BEGUR P.S, REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XLV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-46) IN SC NO.2154/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 306 ARRANGING THE PRESENT PETITIONER AS ACCUSED (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO FILE AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION SEEKING DISCHARGE.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:35292 CRL.RP No. 1282 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶24

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶25

The petitioner is before the Court assailing the order dated 21.03.2025, wherein the Court passed the following order:

¶26

"Accused is absent. EP filed and same is allowed.

¶27

Sri.RR submits no objections to frame the charge.

¶28

Hence, heard, perused the records, the materials are sufficient to frame the charge against the accused.

¶29

Hence, for Charge by 16.05.2025."

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶31

submit that the contents of the charge sheet do not enable the Court to post the case for framing charges. It is the submission of the learned counsel that there was no instruction for the counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused to submit no objection to frame charges. It is submitted that the counsel without authority has made a submission that the charges be

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35292 CRL.RP No. 1282 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

framed. However, the Court without applying mind and without assigning reasons has passed the order and posted the case for framing the charges. Learned counsel would submit that the Court was required to apply its mind assigning the reasons and thereafter should have come to the conclusion as to whether the charges have to be framed or not. Thus, it is submitted that there is serious procedural illegality which would take away valuable right conferred on the petitioner /accused under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶35

Learned High Court Government pleader would submit that the charge sheet contains materials which would enable the Trial Court to frame charges against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the case is filed under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The victim had a relationship with the petitioner for five years and petitioner promised to marry the victim and thereafter he did a 'u' turn. Under these circumstances, victim committed suicide and materials are placed along with charge sheet to proceed further against the petitioner / accused.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:35292 CRL.RP No. 1282 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Learned High Court Government Pleader would further submit that the accused has consistently remained absent before the Trial Court and has not co-operated for quick disposal of the pending case. It is also submitted that the learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused has no objection for framing charges after considering the contents of the charge sheet and it cannot be said that the accused has not authorised a counsel to make statement so recorded in the impugned order.

¶40

This Court has considered the contentions raised at

¶41

the bar and perused the records.

¶42

This Court is of the view that the impugned order

¶43

does not take away any valid defence of the petitioner inasmuch as in case charges are framed without any materials, the petitioner can assail the same in the manner provided under law. That being the position, this Court does not intend to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

¶44