Point of law:Discharge petition - jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Code when invoked by accused, the necessity and desirability would have to be seen by the Court in the context of the purpose investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code. It would also have to be borne in mind that law does not permit a roving or fishing inquiry

ORDER :

This Revision Petition is filed by the complainant challenging the order dated 8.9.2014 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge in SC No.58/2013 whereby the application filed by the accused under Section 227 of Cr.PC., was allowed and the accused persons were discharged for the offence punishable under Section 109, 323, 307, 326, 325, 342 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Revision Petition are as under:

A complaint came to be filed in PCR No.6/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 109, 323, 307, 326, 325, 342 read with Section 34 of IPC, contending that the complainant Kattikara Rajappa is an agriculturist by profession and resident of Thaggihalli village, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District. It is further contended that earlier to filing private complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC., Siddalingappa, has given a complaint against the accused persons before the Nyamathi Police Station, alleging that the complainant has allowed his cattles to their paddy field and damaged the same and Nyamathi Police Station have compromised the matter by imposing fine against the complainant in a sum of Rs.6,000/-and out of which, Rs.3,000/-was given to Savithramma and remaining Rs.3,000/-was given to State. It is further contended that the wife of the complainant asked him as to why he has to give Rs.6,000/- fine and told him to inform the same to the higher police authorities. The accused persons having information about the said fact on 24.11.2006 lodged a complaint against the accused before the Nyamathi police alleging that the accused abused them in filthy language and accused No.4 who is the Police Constable of Cheeluru Out post Police Station has snatched Rs.55/-from the pocket of the complainant on 24.11.2006, abused the complainant in filthy words and assaulted at 2.00 p.m., and they have taken him to Nyamathihalli Police Station wherein accused No.3 who is a relative of accused No.1 and other two police constables have snatched Rs.2,000/-from the pocket of the complainant and confined him in a room and abused him and assaulted with stick and with legs and when the complainant asked for water Accused Nos.1 and 3 mixed some spurious liquid with liquor and made him to drink; again accused Nos.1 and 3 have assaulted him; kicked him and abused him in a filthy language and forcibly made to drink the liquor and thereafter, the complainant lost consciousness and when he re-gained consciousness, he was in the Manipal K.M.C. Hospital and sought for allowing the petition.

3. The learned Magistrate after receipt of the private complaint, took cognizance of the same and then directed that a criminal case be registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 323, 324, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC. Thereafter, since the offences were triable by the Sessions Court, passed an order u/s.209 of Cr.PC., on 23.2.2013 and committed the case to the District and Sessions Court, Davanagere. Learned District Judge after securing the presence of the accused persons proceeded with the case in Sessions Case No.58/2013. At the time of framing of the charge, the accused persons filed an application u/s.227 of Cr.PC., seeking discharge of the accused persons for the alleged offences. Though the said application was opposed, the learned District Judge heard the matter and thereafter, the learned District Judge allowed the application u/s.227 of Cr.PC., and discharged the accused persons. While passing such an order, the materials placed by the accused persons were also taken into account by the learned District Judge and therefore, found that there is no prima facie materials to proceed against the accused persons and discharged the accused persons. It is that order which is challenged in this Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel Sri Umesh Mulimani representing the Revision Petitioner contended that it is the settled principle of law that the learned District