1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1122/2021

BETWEEN:

1.

ABDUL REHAMAN,

S/O MOHAMMAD RIYAZ,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

R/AT.NO.252, 1^ST MAIN,

2^ND CROSS, UMMARBHAG,

K.S. LAYOUT6, J.P.NAGAR,

BANGALORE-560 078.

2.

SMT. SANIYA FATHIMA,

W/O ABDUL REHAMAN,

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

R/AT. NO.252, 1^ST MAIN,

2^ND CROSS, UMMARBHAG,

K.S. LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR,

BANGALORE-560078.

& PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SYED MUGAKKIR AHMED, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

V.V.PURAM POLICE STATION,

BANGALORE-560018.

(REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE-560001)

& RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)

2

THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W

401 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2021

PASSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.192/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE L

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SITTING

AT CHILDRENS COURT. BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY,

DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS-ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4

FROM THE ALLEGED CHARGES FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S

363,370(3),468,419 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC,81 OF

JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN)

ACT AND ETC.,

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON

FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The present Criminal Revision Petition is filed under

Section-397, read with Section-401 of Cr.P.C., calling in

question the legality and propriety of the order passed in

Special C.C. No.192/2021, dated 30.09.2021, passed by

the L Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge, sitting at

Children9s Court, Bangalore, on the application filed under

Section-227 of Cr.P.C., which is filed seeking discharge of

the petitioners - Accused Nos.3 and 4, wherein the Special

Judge has dismissed the application filed by accused Nos.3

and 4. Therefore, accused Nos.3 and 4 have preferred the

present revision petition.

3

Brief facts:

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that accused

Nos.3 and 4 are issueless and had requested accused No.2

to make arrangement for procuring a child. Accused No.2,

taking advantage of the fact that accused No.1 was

frequently visiting Victoria and Vanivilas Hospital and

therefore had acquaintance with the premises of the

Hospital, requested accused No.2 to procure a child. Under

these circumstances, Accused No.2 had grabbed a newly

born child of the complainant and his wife from Vanivilas

Hospital and sold the child to accused Nos.3 and 4 for a

sum of Rs.80,000/-.

3.

Therefore, upon a complaint lodged about the

incident occurred on 11.11.2020, the Police have searched

the child and on 19.11.2020 went to the house of accused

No.1 and then the Police came to know that the child was in

possession of Accused Nos.3 and 4. Thereafter, the Police

took possession of the child and handed over the child to

the

complaint

and

his

wife.

Therefore,

with

these

allegations, a criminal case was launched and after

investigation, the Investigation Officer has filed charge-

sheet against accused Nos.1 to 5, before the Special Court.

4

4.

The petitioners / accused Nos.3 and 4 have

been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under

Sections-363, 370(3), 468, 419 read with Section-34 of IPC

and Section-81 of Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of

Children) Act.

5.

The accused Nos.3 and 4 have filed an

application under Section-227 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge.

The learned Special Judge has dismissed the application of

accused Nos.3 and 4 by assigning reason that the accused

Nos.3 and 4 are husband and wife and they are issueless

and they told the same to accused No.2 and in turn he told

accused No.1. Therefore, accused No.1 kidnapped the child

and handed to accused No.2 and then gave it to accused

Nos.3 and 4 by accepting money of Rs.80,000/-. Therefore,

an opinion was framed by the lear