Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 421 (KAR)

Ranganatha v. State of Karnataka

2019-02-15

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. PATIL, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8, being aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Hassan in SC.No.10/2013, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge them from the offences leveled against them. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and also the learned counsel for respondent No.2, original complainant. 3. Though this petition is posted for Admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 4. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that, case was registered in Cr.No.362/2011 alleging that the complainant got married to accused No.1 on 27.08.2009 and at the time of marriage, dowry in the form of cash and gold was given and thereafter, the accused persons started ill-treating and harassing her for demand of more dowry and also assaulted the complainant. When she had been to the office of one Keshavegowda, Advocate for conciliation of the matter, the complainant lodged the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, after investigation, charge sheet has been filed and thereafter, the accused persons appeared and filed the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge them of the alleged offences. 5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused is that the complainant is in the habit of filing a false complaint only with an intention to harass the petitioners/accused. It is his submission that the second compliant was filed on 23.12.2011 by referring to the incident of 19.12.2011. The present complaint has been filed on 22.12.2011, the said incident is not referred in the first compliant. He further submitted that if the alleged incident has taken place, as contended in the second complaint, in the first complaint itself, the said fact should have been shown and the further statement could have been recorded by the Police and instead of filing a separate charge sheet, they could have included the additional charge sheet in the same case itself. He further submitted that accused Nos.5 to 8 are not the residents of the said village and there is no specific averments to show that they have actually participated. He further submitted that accused Nos.5 to 8 are not the residents of the said village and there is no specific averments to show that they have actually participated. The only allegation made in the charge sheet is that they have conspired with the other accused persons and as such, they have been inducted as accused. He further submitted that the trial Court, without considering the said material, has come to an erroneous conclusion and has wrongly dismissed the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the revision petition and to discharge the petitioners/accused. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the application is not maintainable, as there is prima-facie material to show that the accused persons have ill-treated and harassed the complainant demanding more dowry. He further submitted that after the compliant, the Investigating Officer has thoroughly investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. He further submitted that on acceptance of the charge sheet, if no case has been made out, under such circumstances, the Court can discharge the petitioners/accused, but in the instant case, the documents and other records clearly go to show that there is prima-facie material as against petitioners/accused for the alleged offences. At this stage, it is premature to come to a conclusion that the accused have not committed any offence. The trial Court after considering the said aspect has come to the right conclusion. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order. Hence, he prays to confirm the said order. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent No.2, supporting the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader, further submitted that since from the beginning the accused No.1 being the husband has also ill-treated and other accused persons including the in-laws have also ill-treated and harassed the complainant demanding more dowry and the material which has been produced before the Court clearly shows that there is a prima-facie material to frame the charges and as such, the trial Court has come to the right conclusion and dismissed the said petition. 8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. 8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is well settled principle of law that while considering the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to consider the fact whether there is prima-facie material for framing the charges. The Judge has to consider judicially whether on consideration of the material on records, it can be said that the accused have been reasonably connected with the offences and that there is probability of accused being found guilty. If the answer is in the affirmative, the Court can go on with the framing of charge. It is also further well established principle of law that if a strong suspicion is created, the Court cannot say that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused. Keeping in view of the above said proposition of law, it is essential to consider whether prima-facie material is laid before the Court for framing of the charge in this behalf. 10. As could be seen from the investigation report, the allegations in the complaint is that the accused persons have conspired with each other and they used to ill-treat and harass the complainant demanding dowry. It is also alleged that one night when the complainant was sleeping at that time accused No.1 tried to squeeze her neck and thereby intended to take away her life. It is further stated that when she and her father had been to office of Lawyer for conciliation, then at that time, the accused No.1 assaulted and insulted her and thereby, ill-treatment and harassment has been caused. A perusal of the materials produced clearly go to show that there is prima-facie material to frame the charge as against the accused/petitioners. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused that the first complaint was filed, by that time the second incident which has been referred to in the second complaint was also in existence, the same has been not substantiated. The said incidents have taken place at different places and at different time and the offences are also different. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that it is a frivolous compliant filed by the complainant only with an intention to harass the accused persons. The said incidents have taken place at different places and at different time and the offences are also different. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that it is a frivolous compliant filed by the complainant only with an intention to harass the accused persons. Even though it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 8 that they are not residing in the said place and they are working as a teachers, but as could be seen from the material, they have conspired and instigated with each other to commit the said offence. In the light of the above, it is not a fit case to discharge them also. 11. It is also further submitted that there is a delay in filing the complaint. The said factors are to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial and on the said ground the accused persons cannot be discharged. Taking note of the said aspects, the petitioners/accused have not made out any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. The revision petition being devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. Registry is directed to return the records forthwith. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.