ORDER :

Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J.

1. The petitioner in this petition calls in question the order dated 15-03-2017 of the III Additional Sessions Judge at Tumkur in Special Case No. 266 of 2012 rejecting the application filed by him under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking discharge from the proceedings initiated against him for the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(2)(5) and 3(1)(8) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Atrocities Act').

2. Sans details, facts in brief are as follows:-

The petitioner and the husband/deceased (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') of the complainant have lands which abut each other. It is alleged that the petitioner, his wife, T.S. Mangala and his elder brother H.S. Lingaraj were responsible for the death of the deceased. The allegation in the complaint against the petitioner, his wife and his brother was that the petitioner had filed several cases against the deceased from 1995 to 2012 and the last of the case filed was on 10-10-2012 and on the very next day the deceased had committed suicide. It is on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered against the petitioner, his wife and his brother under Sections 302 and 306 of the IPC read with the provisions of the Atrocities Act.

3. The matter having been referred to investigation, the police after investigation filed their final report/charge sheet dropping offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and offences under Sections 3(1) and 3(10) of the Atrocities Act and what was retained was the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC on the allegation of abetment to suicide. The wife and the brother of the petitioner whose names were earlier found in the charge sheet were dropped from charges. Therefore, the charge sheet was restricted only against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC read with the Atrocities Act.

4. On filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner files an application before the Sessions Court under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from the special case. The Court by its order dated 15th March 2017 rejected the application, which according to the petitioner is a perfunctory order. It is this order of rejection of the application seeking discharge that is called in question in the present petition.

5. Heard Sri. B.K. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Namitha Mahesh. B.G. learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1. The complainant-respondent No. 2 though served, has remained unrepresented.

6. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri. B.K. Manjunath would submit that the event of suicide of the deceased has nothing to do with the petitioner. The allegation is that the petitioner had filed several cases against the deceased which cannot be a ground to link suicide of the deceased and the alleged abetment to suicide. He would further submit that the Investigating Officer had not collected any material to say that the deceased had died after consuming poison or any material is collected at the place of suicide and would submit that unless mens rea is established to suicide, it cannot be linked to the death of the deceased.

7. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the proceedings are at the stage where charges are framed and it is a matter of trial to find out whether there was any link or otherwise of the petitioner with the death of the deceased insofar as it pertains to abetment for committing suicide.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

9. Since the entire issue springs from the death of the husband of the complainant who died by committing suicide and the allegation against the petitioner being for the off