ORDER

Heard Kum.Yuktha, advocate for Smt.Vandana P.L., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

2. Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 20.09.2023 passed in S.C.No.12/2023 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, rejecting the application filed by the accused/revision petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Facts in brief unfold as under:

Accused has been charge sheeted along with Dinesh Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Column 17 of the Charge sheet would reveal that, one Sri Ranganath, S/o Eshwarappa, lodged a complaint alleging that his sister Manjula was married to accused No.1-Dinesh Kumar and she was living with accused No.1 and in the marital life, they have two daughters viz., Khushi and Manvitha. They were residing in a house at Priyanka Layout of Vidyanagara, Shivamogga.

4. It is also contended that accused No.1 was working in MESCOM and in his office, he developed illicit relationship with the present revision petitioner which was initially a love affair and then turned into physical relationship, as a result of which there were bickering in the family of Dinesh Kumar, when deceased was questioning him as to the said relationship.

5. There were frequent quarrels in this regard and on the previous day of the incident, when Dinesh Kumar reached the house very late in the night, again there was scuffle, on deceased questioning Dinesh Kumar as to his arrival into house in the late hours.

6. Thereafter, it is contended that Dinesh Kumar had hoisted a plan with the active support of the present petitioner so as to take away the life of the deceased in order to have peaceful illicit relationship between the present revision petitioner.

7. Material on record also reveals that, there were frequent telephonic calls between the petitioner and Dinesh Kumar. The material collected would also go to show that Dinesh Kumar had purchased a knife to take away the life of the deceased and even on the day when he actually committed the murder of the deceased, Dinesh Kumar had spoken to the present revision petitioner on mobile telephone and petitioner said to have told Dinesh Kumar that he may take away the life of his wife and she would stand by him till rest of his life.

8. After registering the case, police conducted thorough investigation and collected such material which would prima facie establish the above allegations as is found in the charge sheet.

9. After taking cognizance, matter was committed to the Sessions Court. The case was made over to the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, for trial.

10. Before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, presence of the accused was secured. An application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the revision petitioner seeking her discharge from the criminal case. Same was seriously objected to by the prosecution by filing detailed written objection statement.

11. The learned Judge heard in detail the parties and on considering the material available on record, has come to the conclusion that material available on record produced by the prosecution is sufficient enough to proceed with the trial against the accused by framing the charge and, dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner.

12. While so dismissing the application, learned Trial Judge has placed reliance on the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan reported in (2014)11 SCC 709 and in the case of State of Karnataka Lokayukta vs. M.R.Hiremath reported in (2019)7 SCC 515.

13. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition on the following grounds:

 The facts narrated above forms certain ground and hen