IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.494 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

CHOWDAIAH

S/O PEDDANNA,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

R/AT: MANAGALLU

MADABAL HOBLI

MAGADI TALUK

RAMANAGARA – 561 201.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. TEJAS N. ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

MAGADI POLICE

RAMANAGARA – 561 201.

(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

2. SWAMY M.

S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

R/AT: MANAGALLU VILLAGE

MADABALU HOBLI

MAGADI TALUK

RAMANAGARA – 562 127.

..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;

R2 IS SERVED)

®

Crl.R.P.No.494/2020

2

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING

TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2020 PASSED IN SPL.

C.C. NO.73/2019 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTIONS 363, 201, 302, 114, 120B READ WITH

SECTION 34 OF I.P.C. AND UNDER SECTION 3(2)(va) OF THE

SC & ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT,

2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE HIM FROM THE CASE IN

THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION ALONG WITH I.A.2/2021 THROUGH PHYSICAL

HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE

THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The present petitioner is accused No.5 in Spl.

C.C. No. 73/2019 pending on the file of learned

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (for

brevity, ‘Trial Court’) for the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 201, 363, 114, 120B read with S.34 of

Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(va) of

the

Scheduled

Castes

and

the

Scheduled

Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. His

Crl.R.P.No.494/2020

3

application filed before the Trial Court under Section 227 of

Criminal Procedure Code (for short, Cr.P.C.) seeking his

discharge from the said case came to be dismissed by the

Order of the Trial Court dated 03.03.2020. Aggrieved by

the same, the accused No.5 in the Trial Court is before this

Court through this revision petition.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is physically

present in the Court.

The respondent No.1 herein is being represented by

learned High Court Government Pleader.

The

respondent

No.2

who

was

the

de-facto

complainant before the first respondent though served

with the notice has remained unrepresented.

3.

Though this matter is listed for admission,

however, with the consent from both side, it is taken up

for final disposal.

4.

Perused the materials placed before this Court.

Heard the arguments from both side.

Crl.R.P.No.494/2020

4

5.

The point that arises for my consideration is

whether the impugned order of the Trial Court suffers from

any perversity, illegality or error warranting interference

by this Court?

6.

The accusation made in the charge-sheet is

that one deceased Ravi was in love with one Miss. Ashwini,

daughter of accused No.4 Nagesh which was not

acceptable to the father of said Miss. Ashwini (accused

No.4). Despite several warnings given to the deceased by

accused No.4, the deceased continued his love affair with

said Ashwini which ultimately resulted in the murder of the

said Ravi on 30.06.2019 at about 10.00 p.m. It is also

alleged that prior to his murder, on the same day he was

abducted by accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 and was taken to

different place and was beaten up mercilessly with several

weapons and ultimately he was murdered in a brutal

manner using deadly weapons and inflicting multiple

injuries upon him. It is alleged that the said incident of

murder is the result of conspiracy hatched by the accused

Crl.R.P.No.494/2020

5

involving the present petitioner. Accordingly, the charge-

sheet