Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 668 (KAR)

RAKHI KRISTOPHER COLUMBUS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2016-09-01

BUDIHAL R.B.

body2016
ORDER : BUDIHAL R.B., J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 - State and also learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 - complainant. 2. The revision petitioner herein challenging the order dated 15.04.2016 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Bidar on the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the petitioner from the proceedings in S.C.No. 118/2015. By the said order dated 15.04.2016 the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein and same has been challenged on the grounds as mentioned in this criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case that the complainant is the father of the deceased one Smt. Margret and said complaint was filed on 31.12.2014 alleging that he had performed her marriage with accused No. 1-Prashanth on 30.01.2011 giving Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash and 4 tolas of gold and after the marriage his daughter Margret led happy marital life for six months only. Thereafter, accused started subjecting her to cruelty insisting her to bring dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- for accused No. 1 for his B.Sc. Nursing education and another Rs. 50,000/-. Accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- for obtaining Nursing certificate for accused No. 1, for which the complainant could not arrange, therefore, accused subjected deceased Margret into cruelty and harassment and 4-5 times the locality persons have advised the accused but it becomes in vein. 50,000/- for accused No. 1 for his B.Sc. Nursing education and another Rs. 50,000/-. Accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- for obtaining Nursing certificate for accused No. 1, for which the complainant could not arrange, therefore, accused subjected deceased Margret into cruelty and harassment and 4-5 times the locality persons have advised the accused but it becomes in vein. His further allegation that on 24.12.2014 when he visited the house of the accused to take his daughter for Christmas festival, the accused did not allow her to go with the complainant and quarrelled with him and elderly persons advised the complainant to take his daughter at the time of new year, therefore he returned and on 31.12.2014 in the morning at 9:00 a.m. she telephoned him asking when the complainant is coming to take her and complainant informed her that he would come by 1:00 p.m. It is further stated that accordingly he along with one C.B. Kumar S/o Balappa went to the house of the accused by 3:00 p.m. and accused No. 1 provided them chair and made them to sit and called C.B. Kumar outside and informed him that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself and rooms were locked and other accused were not there, then he secured neighbours and broke the door of that room and found his daughter lying dead on the cot. Therefore, he lodged the complaint against the petitioner herein and also against the other accused persons for the said offences. Accordingly, case was registered. 4. After conducting and completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the said offences. Accordingly, the case was registered in the Sessions case in S.C. No. 118/2015. 5. There afterwards the present petitioner herein filed the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court praying the Court to discharge the present petitioner from the proceedings, as there is no prima facie material against the petitioner. 6. After hearing the parties on both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge, Bidar by his order dated 15.04.2016 rejected the application holding that there is prima facie material even against the present petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in this criminal petition. 7. 6. After hearing the parties on both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge, Bidar by his order dated 15.04.2016 rejected the application holding that there is prima facie material even against the present petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in this criminal petition. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 4, so also the arguments of the learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 - complainant in this petition. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the submission that though such application was filed before the Sessions Court seeking the discharge of the present petitioner even then the said application was not considered for a longer time though the objections were also filed by the prosecution. Though his application was pending, the Court proceeded to frame the charge, the matter was commenced for trial and process was issued, witnesses also at that stage the petitioner herein approached this court by filing the criminal petition before this Court in Crl.P. No. 200317/2016 and this Court after considering the submission made in the said petition by both the sides allowed the said petition by its order dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the charges framed, so also the order dated 16.01.2016 and directed the learned Sessions Judge to hear the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and pass appropriate orders. It was further directed in the said order if the Sessions Court rejects the said application, then only, it can proceed with the case by framing of the charges afresh. After such an order the Trial Court heard the application filed by petitioner-accused No. 4 and after considering the arguments at the bar by both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application. The counsel made the submission that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is patently illegal and it is liable to be set aside. He made the submission that so far the petitioner herein is concerned there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution that she is involved in committing such offences. The counsel made the submission that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is patently illegal and it is liable to be set aside. He made the submission that so far the petitioner herein is concerned there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution that she is involved in committing such offences. It is also his contention that she was given in marriage to one Kristopher and after the marriage she was residing along with her husband and she was not at all residing in the house of her brother accused No. 1 and she was working in Raichur at that time. Though these points were brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge, in spite of that learned Sessions Judge proceeded to reject the application. The learned counsel also draw the attention of this Court to the charge-sheet material and submitted that even in the charge-sheet also so far as the present petitioner is concerned, it is not the allegation she involved in committing the offences under Section 304-B dowry death and offence under Section 302 the alleged murder. The learned counsel submitted that the only allegation and the offence against the petitioner and accused No. 3 are under Sections 147, 498-A, 114, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the learned Sessions judge has not at all looked into the scope of 227 of the Cr.P.C., wrongly proceeded to reject the application. Hence, he submitted to allow the application and to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and also ordered for discharge of the revision petitioner-accused No. 4. 9. Per contra, learned Government Pleader during the course of argument submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner herein is valid and it is in accordance with the material placed on record. He made the submission that looking to the charge-sheet material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, looking to the statement of witnesses there is prima facie case made out by the prosecution even with regard to the involvement of the present petitioner also in committing the said offences. He made the submission that looking to the charge-sheet material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, looking to the statement of witnesses there is prima facie case made out by the prosecution even with regard to the involvement of the present petitioner also in committing the said offences. Hence, he submitted that the learned Sessions Judge passed the well reasoned order and detail reasoning are recorded as to why the said application is going to be rejected. Hence, he submitted that there is no illegality in the order and there is no merit in this petition and also to be rejected. 10. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-complainant also made the submission that materials collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation made out prima facie case even as against the present petitioner. The learned counsel draw the attention of this Court to the statement of one Kristopher who is the husband of the present petitioner herein supports the case of the prosecution. He also referred the statement of one Kumar who is said to have been accompanied the complainant to the house of accused No. 1, so also the other statements. He too made the submission that there is no merit in this petition and same is to be rejected. Further contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant that the Trial Court has already framed the charge and this petition is filed after framing the charge, which is not maintainable and he can challenge the framing of the charge by filing the appropriate petition. Even on that ground also learned counsel opposed the petition. 11. I have perused the grounds urged in the criminal petition, the order of the learned Sessions Judge passed on the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and also I have perused the charge-sheet material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as is made over by the learned Government Pleader. Looking to the complaint averments, so also the submission of other witnesses it prima facie goes to show that there are allegations even as against the present petitioner that she along with other family members used to give ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased in connection with demand for additional dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- which amount said to have been required for the education purpose of accused No. 1. 50,000/- which amount said to have been required for the education purpose of accused No. 1. Even looking to the very statement of husband of the present petitioner herein one Kristopher whose statement was also recorded by the Investigating Officer clearly goes to show that she led marital life only for a period of three months and thereafter she deserted the husband and went back to her parental place and even when the elders advised that she again came and stayed only for a period of 3-4 days and again went back. So this statement of the very husband also prima facie goes to show that she was residing in her parental place. In view of this material contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that she was residing in her husband's place and she was not at all residing in her parental place cannot be accepted at this stage. Anyhow it is the plea of alibi raised by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner - accused No. 4 same is to be the matter to be raised during the course of trial and not at this stage because it requires recording of evidence on this aspect also by the learned Sessions Judge. Now coming to the order of learned Sessions Judge this Court has to examine whether the order is in accordance with the materials placed on record or not. Perusing the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge he has referred to the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course, of investigation so also the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding scope and applicability of Section 227 of discharge application and he has written well reasoned order considering all the contentions raised by both the sides and ultimately rejected the application filed by the petitioner accused No. 4. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Sessions Judge nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken by the Trial Court in rejecting the said application. As even with regard to the charge-sheet material, I am also of the opinion that there is prima facie material placed by the prosecution against this present petitioner also. Hence, no grounds to allow the petition and to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the petition is hereby rejected. 12. As even with regard to the charge-sheet material, I am also of the opinion that there is prima facie material placed by the prosecution against this present petitioner also. Hence, no grounds to allow the petition and to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the petition is hereby rejected. 12. However, learned Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court in the body of the order and he has to conduct the trial of the case and to dispose of the case independently in accordance with law.