IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 316 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

MR. N. MANJUNATH,

S/O N NARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

KEREMEGALA KOPPALU VILLAGE,

BUKINAKERE HOBLI,

KRISHNARAJAPET TALUK, MANDYA DIST - 571 426.

NOW AT HOUSE NO.2888/1,

OLD HEMAGIRI ROAD,

NEAR KYAVALYASHWARA,

SAMUDHAYA BHAVANA, HEMAVATHI BADAVANE,

K R PET TOWN, MANDYA - 571 426.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by(BY SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

GEETHAKUMARI

PARLATTAYA S

AND:

Location: High

Court of

Karnataka MR. RANGASWAMY,

S/O HICHAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,

FORMERLY AT

KRISHNARAJAPET CITY PS,

KRISHNARAJPET TALUK,

MANDYA DIST - 571 426.

NOW R/AT T.BEGUR,

NELAMANGALA,

TUMKURU MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 562 123.

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NANDINI B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI BHARGAV G.,ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2022 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION AT JMFC, K.R. PETE IN C.C.NO.9/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE A, WHEREIN THE ACCUSED IS DISCHARGED BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 245 OF CR.P.C.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging impugned order dated 21.12.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., K.R.Pet, in C.C.no.9/2014, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this revision petition was by defacto complainant challenging order passed by trial Court on an application filed by respondent (accused) for discharge. It was submitted, petitioner herein had filed PCR.no.2/2014 as per Annexure-D alleging offence punishable under Sections 217, 218, 219, 323, 324, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, ('IPC', for short) against accused. In said petition, after recording sworn statement of complainant on 06.01.2014, trial Court had taken cognizance. At that time, trial Court had taken note of need for prior sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) as accused was serving as Police Sub-Inspector and opined that nature of allegations did not require sanction. 3. It was submitted, said order was challenged by accused before this Court in Criminal Petition no.1868/2014 which was dismissed on 12.09.2014 by observing whether there was need for sanction could be ascertained only on conclusion of trial. Subsequently, in course of recording of evidence of PW-1, accused had filed application for discharge on sole ground that accused being Police Sub-Inspector, was protected under Section 197 of CrPC and could not be prosecuted without prior sanction. Accepting said reason, impugned order was passed.

4. It was submitted, when trial Court at time of taking cognizance had opined that prior sanction would not be necessary and in challenge against said order, this Court had opined question whether prior sanction would be necessary could be asserted only on conclusion of trial, consideration of application for discharge by trial Court before conclusion of trial was erroneous and contrary to law and called for interference.

On said ground sought for allowing revision petition.

5. Smt.Nandini B., learned counsel appearing for Sri G. Bhargav, advocate for respondent (accused) opposed revision petition. It was submitted that Section 227 of CrPC provided for consideration of application for discharge at any time. Admittedly, prior sanction in instant case had not been obtained. Therefore, there was no error committed by trial Court. Attention was drawn to observation by trial Court in para 11 of impugned order and there was no dispute that accused is a police officer. One more reason assigned was failure to produce document by complainant to establish injuries.

Therefore, impugned order was justified.

6. In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had got marked Wound Certific