1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.906 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

STATE BY TAVAREKERE

POLICE STATION - 562 136.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.V.S.VINAYAKA, HCGP-PH)

AND:

1.

HUCHAPPA @ RAJA

S/O LAKSHMAYYA

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

2.

NARAYANAPPA @ NARASIMHAIAH

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

3.

LAKSHMAIAH

S/O SRI.NARASIMHAIAH

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

4.

MADDURAMMA

W/O SRI.LAKSHMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT HUNNIGERE VILLAGE

TAVAREKERE HOBLI,

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 562 130.

& RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.SRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI.M.R.NANJUNDAGOWDA, ADVOCATE-PH)

2

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

ORDER

PASSED

ON

THE

APPLICATION

FILED

BY

THE

RESPONDENTS DATED 5.6.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE FTC,

RAMANAGARA IN S.C.NO.97/10 AND DIRECT THE P.O., FTC.,

RAMANAGARA TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL AGAINST THE

RESPONDENTS IN S.C.NO.97/10 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

1.

Heard Sri.V.S.Vinayaka, learned HCGP for the

State and Sri.Srinath, learned counsel on behalf of

Sri.M.R.Nanjundagowda, counsel for the respondent.

2.

The present revision petition is filed by the

State challenging the order passed by the learned First

Track

Court,

Ramanagara

dated

05.06.2012

in

S.C.No.97/2010 whereby the application filed by the

present respondents who are accused Nos.2 to 4 was

allowed and the respondents were discharged for the

offences punishable under Section 498A, 302, 304B read

with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

3

3.

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

Upon

a

complaint

lodged

by

Smt.Shanthamma on 08.05.2010, Tavarekere Police

registered a case against the present respondents and

also accused No.1, who is the husband of the deceased

Kamalamma for the offences punishable under Section

498A, 302, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and

Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further

contended in the complaint that Kamalamma, who is the

daughter of the complainant, was given in marriage to

the accused No.1 and at the time of the marriage, gold

bracelet, watch and cash were also given to the accused

No.1. After some time, Kamalamma became pregnant

and to celebrate the occasion, a small function was

arranged on 09.05.2010. But on 08.05.2010 at about

11.00 a.m., the brother of the complainant received a

telephone message stating that Kamalamma is dead.

Accordingly, the complainant and her relatives visited

4

the place of the incident and noticed that Kamalamma

hung herself. These respondents and accused No.1 ill-

treated Kamalamma by demanding extra dowry and

harassed and ultimately, she lost her life. The police

after registering the case, investigated the matter inter

alia recorded the statement of the complainant and

other prosecution witnesses and filed a charge sheet

against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The

respondents herein filed an application under Section

227 Cr.P.C., seeking their discharge contending that

they are no where connected with the incident and they

have been unnecessarily roped in the incident by the

complainant party. The said application was opposed by

the prosecution by filing necessary written objections.

The learned Judge in the trial Court, after hearing the

counsel for the accused and the prosecution, allowed the

application filed by the respondents and discharged from

5

the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the same,

the State is in revision.

4.

The learned HCGP vehemently contended

that the trial Judge has wrongly applied the principles of

law

while

allowing

the

application

filed

by

the

respondents seeking discharge. He further contended

that the trial Judge