Dr Lakshmisha Vs Keerthi P S @ Keerthi P S

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2026 PASSED BY THE 1^ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN SC.NO.40/2023 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.44/2022 OF MANDYA CENTRAL POLICE, MANDYA, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 354 OF IPC AND DIRECT THE COURT BELOW TO FRAME CHARGE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RESPONDENT NO.4, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 354 OF IPC, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:35409 CRL.RP No. 690 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.5

¶34

The order challenged before this Court is allowing the application of accused Nos.1 to 4 filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in part, discharging the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC that are no ingredients for the said offence and rejecting the application for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and failed to take note of ingredients of offence under Section 354 of IPC and specific allegation is made that at the time of quarrel, accused Nos.4 and 5, holding C.W.1 assaulted her on the neck and left arm with her finger nail and caused injuries on her body. Her statement was also recorded before the Court under Section

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:35409 CRL.RP No. 690 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

164 of CR.P.C., wherein also categorically stated that accused Nos.4 and 5 assaulted her and abused her in filthy language. However, the Trial Court gave a finding that accused Nos.4 and 5 scratched her shoulder and pinched her chest. But, her complaint or further statement does not show the alleged act to her chest and further such version is not supported by eye witnesses C.Ws.3 to 6 or injured C.W.2 also. The finding of the Trial Court is not correct. At the time of incident, the injured C.W.1 fell down due to the assault and other witness also stated that accused Nos.4 and 5 were holding the complainant. When such statement is made before the Court, the Trial Court ought to have taken note of Section 149 of IPC with common object and furtherance of common object, offence was committed. Hence, ought not to have assigned reasons in coming to the conclusion that statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of C.W.1 would indicate that accused Nos.4 and 5 scratched her shoulder and pinched her chest. But, her complaint or further statement does not show the alleged act to her chest by accused Nos.1 to 4. The counsel would vehemently contend that when all of them have joined together and shared common object and committed an offence and also

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:35409 CRL.RP No. 690 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

when the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that it attracts offence under Sections 143, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC against other accused persons, ought not to have discharged accused Nos.1 to 4.

¶44

The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in his argument would vehemently contend that Trial Court has taken note of ingredients of offence under Section 354 of IPC and particularly, no overt act allegation against accused Nos.1 to 4 for committing offence under Section 354 of IPC and only allegations are made accused Nos.4 and 5. Hence, not committed any error.

¶45

The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.5 would submit that accused No.5 is no more and accused No.4 is alive. He would submit that Trial Court taken note of material on record, but erroneously made an observation that no ingredients of offence under Section 354 of IPC.

¶46

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶47

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned High

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35409 CRL.RP No. 690 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Court Government Pleader for respondent No.5 and considering the material on record, particularly the allegation made in column No.17 of the charge-sheet, nowhere such allegation is found against accused Nos.1 to 4 that with an intention to outrage the modesty of C.W.1, committed an offence of assault under Section 354 of IPC. No doubt, on perusal of the chargesheet, it is mentioned that when C.W.1 tried to rescue her husband and at that time, accused Nos.4 and 5 held her, abused in filthy language and assaulted her, but no specific overt act allegation against accused Nos.1 to 4 outraging her modesty and Trial Court has taken note of said fact into consideration while passing the impugned order and also allegation is against accused Nos.4 and 5 and accused No.5 is no more and accused No.4 is also a lady and only allegation against her is that she scratched her shoulder and pinched her chest and even in 164 statement also, no such statement is made against accused Nos.1 to 4, though the same is relied upon by learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.5-State.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:35409 CRL.RP No. 690 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

When such being the case and when the Trial Court also taken note of ingredients of the offence under Section 354 of IPC and no such allegations are made, only an attempt made by the revision petitioner counsel before this Court is that it is an offence committed by more than 5 persons and it attracts offence under Section 149 of IPC that with a common object, they did the same. But, having taken note of even common object and in furtherance of common object, any act is done, but no such specific allegation against accused Nos.1 to 4 that they outraged the modesty of C.W.1.

¶55

Under the circumstances, I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that Trial Court committed an error in invoking Section 354 of IPC. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 also brought to notice of this Court that no such specific overt act allegations against C.W.1 to invoke the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 of IPC of outraging the modesty. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to set aside the order of Trial Court allowing the

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:35409 CRL.RP No. 690 of 2026

¶57