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. 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. 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 applicati