ORDER : Though the matter is listed for admission with the consent of both the parties it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This is the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 invoking Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 27.01.2018 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge holding concurrent charges of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in Spl.Case.No.5/2013 and consequently, discharge the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 342, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. The learned counsel made submission that these petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 moved an application before the learned Special Judge seeking their discharge from the proceedings, the same came to be opposed by the prosecution and ultimately the application came to be rejected. 5. The learned counsel draws attention of the Court that the contents of the complaint by one Ramesh who is the complainant and made submission that the complaint averments clearly goes to show that it is only as against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the present petitioners are not at all involved in committing the alleged offences. He also made the submission that the complaint in so far as, the 1st petitioner-Vijay Kumar who is arraigned as accused No.3, he helped the complainant for getting treatment by taking to Chintamani Government Hospital. He also draws the attention of the Court the head of the charge sheet and even the charge sheet, the first part is also in consonance with the allegations made with complaint that it is accused Nos.1 and 2 who alleged to have been committed offence as against the complainant. 6. The learned counsel submitted that subsequently, even the offences by present petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 is said to have been committed by accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that there is no connection with the alleged offence as against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5. With the malafide intention the complaint has been lodged by the complainant – Ramesh. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that there is no connection with the alleged offence as against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5. With the malafide intention the complaint has been lodged by the complainant – Ramesh. Hence, it is submitted that these aspects were not completely looked into by the learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the said application and that the petition be allowed and petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 be discharged from the proceedings. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the charge sheet material there is a prima facie case even as against the present petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5. Hence, they are not entitled for discharge from the proceedings. 8. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, the complaint averments, FIR and also the statement of witness collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer. Looking to the complaint dated 14.07.2012, the complainant’s specific case is that it is only accused No.1 and 2 came to him then they took him to Cinema Theatre and thereafter, they went to Panchamrutha Hotel to have meals and during night at about 7.30 PM, accused Nos.1 and 2 took the complainant stating that they should go to Shanimahatma Temple and then accused Nos.1 and 2 insisted the complainant that about a week back he has sold the land and they insisted him to give Rs.10.00 lakhs to them and they took him to nearby New Public School with an intention to commit murder. Accused No.2-Shabarisha asked the complainant to give amount which he has kept in the pocket. When the complainant told that he was not having the money accused No.2 pushed him took razor and caused bleeding injury to the neck. Thereafter, accused No.1- Murthy also took razor and caused bleeding injury to the back and also abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste and they too committed alleged offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is also alleged that accused No.3 herein in fact assisted the complainant for shifting him to the hospital. When that is so, the complainant himself has not disclosed himself the petitioners herein, there cannot be a case as against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5. Any witnesses said to have been examined they must be in consonance with the allegations made in the complaint. Complaint is foundation in the criminal case. When that is so, the complainant himself has not disclosed himself the petitioners herein, there cannot be a case as against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5. Any witnesses said to have been examined they must be in consonance with the allegations made in the complaint. Complaint is foundation in the criminal case. Therefore, this aspect is not considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC and also under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not made applicable to the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 herein but so far as other offences are concerned materials will not make out a case on the side of the prosecution how the incident alleged as against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 is connected to the main incident dated 12.07.2012. Hence, looking to these materials, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the application is illegal. There is no prima facie material as against petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 herein are discharged from the proceedings by allowing their application.