The petitioners are before this Court calling in

question order dated 30^th October, 2019 passed in

Criminal Revision Petition No.80 of 2018, whereby, the I

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru, affirmed

the order dated 6^th September, 2018 passed by the IV

Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkuru, in C.C.No.748

of 2017, rejecting the application filed under Section 239

of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the petitioners for

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114,

323, 324, 427, 506 r/w. 149 of the IPC.

2. Heard Smt. K.Abhinaya, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

- 4 -

3. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution, are as

follows:-

It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant

/ 2^nd respondent had received 23 guntas of landed

property from her late husband in Sy.No.37/4 B1, out of 1

acre and 07 guntas, where she had constructed a house in

the said property and was residing there with her children.

It is the case of the complainant that on 10-09-

2016, at around 1 p.m. petitioner Nos.1 to 7 came near

the house, picked up a fight with the complainant during

which time, the 4^th petitioner took huge stone and threw

on the power tiller that was parked in front of the

complainant9s house and that, when CWs-2 and 3

questioned the petitioners as to why they were behaving

like that, they further created ruckus and damaged chairs

and tables of the hotel which was constructed in the said

land. On 15-09-2016, after five days of the said incident

which happened on 10.09.2016, a complaint comes to be

- 5 -

registered against the petitioners in Crime No.81 of 2016

for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,148, 323,

324, 427,.506 and 149 of the IPC. The police after

investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioners in

C.C.No.748 of 2017.

4. After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners

filed discharge application before the learned Magistrate

seeking their discharge from the array of accused in

C.C.No.748 of 2017. This came to be dismissed by an

order of the learned Magistrate on 06.09.2018. Against the

said order, the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision

Petition No.80 of 2018, before learned Sessions Judge,

who by his order dated 30^th October 2019, dismissed the

revision petition. It is these orders that are called in

question before this Court with a consequential relief of

their discharge from the proceedings.

- 6 -

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the complainant and the petitioners are

members of the same family and a suit for partition and

separate possession with regard to the suit schedule

properties is pending between the petitioners and the 2^nd

respondent in O.S.No.154 of 2006. Pressure was brought

in against the petitioners for withdrawal of the suit and the

petitioners did not accede to the request of the

complainant and her children to withdraw the said suit. It

is on that ground, the problem arose on a particular day

i.e., 10.09.2016. The learned counsel would submit that

the entire episode narrated by the complainant is all false

as who have suffered and who have been beaten are the

petitioners by the complainant and her sons. The 1^st

petitioner had in fact been admitted to the District

Hospital, Tumkuru, as she was assaulted by the 2^nd

respondent and her children. There is no wound certificate

produced by the complainant or collected during the

- 7 -

investigation that would demonstrate that the complainant

was in fact assaulted.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would

however seek to refute the submissions to contend that

the petitioners are prima facie guilty of the offences and

have to come out clean in the trial.

7. The 2^nd respondent complainant dies during the

pendency of these proceedings.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record.

9. It