ORDER : 1. The present petitioner is accused No.5 in Spl. C.C. No. 73/2019 pending on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (for brevity, ‘Trial Court’) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 363, 114, 120B read with S.34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. His application filed before the Trial Court under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, Cr.P.C.) seeking his discharge from the said case came to be dismissed by the Order of the Trial Court dated 03.03.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the accused No.5 in the Trial Court is before this Court through this revision petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is physically present in the Court. The respondent No.1 herein is being represented by learned High Court Government Pleader. The respondent No.2 who was the de-facto complainant before the first respondent though served with the notice has remained unrepresented. 3. Though this matter is listed for admission, however, with the consent from both side, it is taken up for final disposal. 4. Perused the materials placed before this Court. Heard the arguments from both side. 5. The point that arises for my consideration is whether the impugned order of the Trial Court suffers from any perversity, illegality or error warranting interference by this Court? 6. The accusation made in the charge-sheet is that one deceased Ravi was in love with one Miss. Ashwini, daughter of accused No.4 Nagesh which was not acceptable to the father of said Miss. Ashwini (accused No.4). Despite several warnings given to the deceased by accused No.4, the deceased continued his love affair with said Ashwini which ultimately resulted in the murder of the said Ravi on 30.06.2019 at about 10.00 p.m. It is also alleged that prior to his murder, on the same day he was abducted by accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 and was taken to different place and was beaten up mercilessly with several weapons and ultimately he was murdered in a brutal manner using deadly weapons and inflicting multiple injuries upon him. It is alleged that the said incident of murder is the result of conspiracy hatched by the accused involving the present petitioner. Accordingly, the charge-sheet accuses the accused of the offences as mentioned above. 7. It is alleged that the said incident of murder is the result of conspiracy hatched by the accused involving the present petitioner. Accordingly, the charge-sheet accuses the accused of the offences as mentioned above. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that there is no whisper about the active involvement of the present petitioner (accused No.5) in the alleged commission of the crime. Every overt act alleged against the accused may be as against the remaining accused only but not against the present petitioner. He further submits that to prove the commission of an offence of abetment, one of the necessary ingredients is the presence of the abettor at the spot of the commission of the crime which allegedly took place. According to the charge-sheet the present petitioner (accused No.5) was not present at the spot of the alleged commission of the crime. Therefore, the necessary ingredients of abetment is not made out. He further submits that the alleged call details register and other documents showing the alleged telephonic conversation between the present petitioner and other accused has not been produced by the Investigating Officer. Further, the Trial Court has held that the question of filing of additional charge-sheet does not arise. Therefore, the prosecution cannot file any further document. As such also the present petitioner deserves to be discharged from the alleged offences. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 submits that admittedly the present petitioner is brother-in-law of accused No.4 who is the father of Miss. Ashwini with whom the deceased was said to have maintained a love affair. He also submits that the complainant at the very first instance has named the present petitioner as accused for one of the alleged offences which was further reiterated by him in a second complaint which was filed after coming to know about the murder of deceased Ravi. He also submits that all charge-sheet witnesses have given their statements in support of the prosecution case which also involves the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has collected the call details and relevant documents to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the conspiracy, as such, there are all the materials to subject the present petitioner in the crime. 9. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has collected the call details and relevant documents to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the conspiracy, as such, there are all the materials to subject the present petitioner in the crime. 9. A perusal of the copy of the complaint which is produced along with the petition would go to show that the complainant at the very first instance in the alleged commission of the crime of abduction of deceased Ravi has shown the present petitioner also as one of the accused with whose involvement the said abduction has taken place. Thus at the very first instance there is an allegation of involvement against the present petitioner. Thus the first point of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is only based upon the alleged voluntary statement of the accused, the present petitioner was roped in the charge-sheet cannot be accepted. 10. Secondly, the very same complainant after revealing alleged murder of Ravi has given his second complaint before the first respondent – police wherein also he has mentioned the name of the present petitioner and accused that it was at his instigation the murder of Ravi has taken place. The investigation was subsequently taken up and Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet wherein the Investigating Officer though has stated that the actual commission of the murder of deceased Ravi using the deadly weapons and in a brutal manner was from the other accused but he has also stated that the said commission of the crime had taken place at the instigation of some of the accused including the present petitioner. Thus the charge-sheet specifically accuses that the present petitioner had active role to play in the occurrence of the alleged offences. 11. Thirdly learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged call details register and other documents disclosing the alleged telephonic calls said to have been exchanged between the other accused and accused No.5 have not been placed on record and in that regard the Trial Court has made an observation that question of filing additional charge-sheet does not arise. 12. Thirdly learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged call details register and other documents disclosing the alleged telephonic calls said to have been exchanged between the other accused and accused No.5 have not been placed on record and in that regard the Trial Court has made an observation that question of filing additional charge-sheet does not arise. 12. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that while filing the charge-sheet itself the Investigating Officer had submitted to the Court that in due course he would file the Forensic Science Laboratory report and the certified copies of the call details register and the rough sketch of the scene of offence panchanama and would file them in a process known to law including under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. In that regard when the order sheets maintained by the Trial Court the copy of which has been furnished by the petitioner himself are perused, the same would go to show that at no occasion up to 06.06.2020, the Trial Court has made an observation that the Investigating Officer either cannot file the additional charge-sheet, or that the question of he filing the additional charge-sheet does not arise. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner since made a submission that such an observation was made by the Trial Court on 06.06.2020, the proceeding recorded on the said date i.e. 06.06.2020 by the Trial Court is reproduced hereinbelow: “A1 to A4 not produced from JC. A5 to A7 are absent. Learned counsel for A1 to 5 is present and submitted that no Additional Charge Sheet is filed and hence supplying of Additional Charge Sheet does not arise. As no representation by the counsel for A6. For hearing on application U/s.227 of Cr.P.C. Call on 16.06.2020.” 14. A reading of the above would nowhere takes one to the near of an impression that the Trial Court came to a finding or a conclusion that the Investigating Officer cannot file any additional charge-sheet. On the other hand in its previous observation on 21.03.2020, the very same Court has stated that the Investigating Officer was required to furnish copies of the additional charge-sheet to the accused since the learned counsel for the accused therein claims of he having not been supplied with the copies of the additional charge-sheet. On the other hand in its previous observation on 21.03.2020, the very same Court has stated that the Investigating Officer was required to furnish copies of the additional charge-sheet to the accused since the learned counsel for the accused therein claims of he having not been supplied with the copies of the additional charge-sheet. Therefore, when this aspect was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the present petitioner during the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that he is making the submission that the Trial Court observed that the question of Investigating Officer filing additional charge-sheet does not arise, based upon the instructions given to him by his client. The said submission is really shocking for the reason that it is the learned counsel who is the legal expert who is making such a submission irrespective of the fact that the clients to a counsel may give any type of instructions. It is needless to say that it is for the learned counsel to weigh and filter them and only make those submissions which he deems fit to make before the Court. In the instant case when admittedly the very same counsel in the present petition has filed the copies of the proceedings of the Trial Court including the one dated 06.06.2020 and when he has gone through the recording of the proceeding of the Trial Court dated 06.06.2020, he cannot merely say that based upon the instructions of his client he is making such a submission. As observed above, the said recording of the proceeding dated 06.06.2020 would only go to show that it was the submission of learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 5 and the Trial Court has not made any observation that the Investigating Officer cannot file additional charge-sheet or additional documents in the case and in a process known to law. Therefore, it cannot be held that the Investigating Officer has no basis to include or involve the present accused in the alleged commission of the crime. 15. Fourthly it also can be noticed that the accusation leveled against the accused in the form of offences punishable under several sections not only includes Section 114 but also includes Section 120B of IPC. 15. Fourthly it also can be noticed that the accusation leveled against the accused in the form of offences punishable under several sections not only includes Section 114 but also includes Section 120B of IPC. When a specific allegation is there that it was at the instigation of the present petitioner the alleged commission of the crime has taken place and when there are evidences in that regard, at this stage without even subjecting those documents for trial it cannot be held that there is no material for subjecting the present petitioner for the trial for the alleged offences including the one under Section 120B of IPC. As such, since the Trial Court precisely though for some of the reasons has rejected the application of the present petitioner filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., I do not find any perversity, illegality or error in the said order warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition stands dismissed as devoid of merit. In view of the disposal of the main matter I.A. 2/2021 does not survive for consideration. Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the concerned Trial Court, forthwith.