1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5014/2022
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI ASHOK KHENY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
S/O SRI MAHARUDRAPPA KHENY
RESIDING AT NO.2-45
RANJOL KHENY
BIDAR TALUK
BIDAR - 585 329.
ALSO AT:
M/S. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE
CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD.,
#1, MIDFORD HOUSE
MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF M.G. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2.
SRI SANJAY G. KHENY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE GURUBASAPPA KHENY
R/C 2-45, RANJOL KHENY
BIDAR TALUK
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 329.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI S.B. MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI ABRAHAM T.J.,
PRESIDENT
2
ANTI CORRUPTION AND SOCIAL ACTIVIST
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
#2326, 'ASHIRWAD'
2ND A CROSS, 16TH B MAIN
H.A.L. 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 008.
… RESPONDENT
(SRI ABRAHAM T.J. - PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
16.04.2022
PASSED
BY
THE
XLII
ADDITIONAL
CHIEF
METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU
IN
C.C.
NO.30749/2021 (THAT IS ANNEXURE-A) AND DISCHARGE THE
PETITIONERS IN C.C. NO.30749/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE COURT OF XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE BENGALURU AND TO AWARD COSTS.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 have called
in question the validity of the order dated 16.04.2022
passed by the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore, whereby the application for discharge filed by
petitioners was dismissed.
2.
Without adverting to the facts of the case, the
legal contentions raised by Sri. C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the present
case is a case on the basis of a complaint wherein after
3
notice under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and evidence is led in, it
is only at the stage of Section 245 of Cr.P.C. the accused
can seek for discharge. It is pointed out that the admitted
procedure is that the evidence for the prosecution could be
led in terms of Chapter-XIX after notice to the accused and
subsequent to which stage of recording of evidence under
Section 244, accused can seek for discharge in terms of
Section 245 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the test
that is required to be answered is in terms of Section
245(1) "if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction". It is
further submitted that in terms of Section 246, when the
accused is not discharged and the Magistrate deems it fit to
proceed, it is required that the Magistrate must be of the
opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused
has committed an offence triable under this Chapter.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the observations made at
Paragraph 10 of the impugned order are contrary to the test
under Section 245 and on the basis of such terms as
reflected in paragraph 10 of the impugned order, the trial
4
Judge has grossly erred in dismissing the application for
discharge.
3.
On the other hand, respondent - Sri. Abraham
T.J., appearing as party-in-person submits that reference to
Section 227 of Cr.P.C. regarding discharge of accused would
not make much difference and even otherwise there is no
failure of justice and accordingly the order, which otherwise
on substantive merits is correct, ought not to be set aside
on the technical defects as pointed out.
4.
Heard both sides.
5.
It must be noted that admittedly it is the case on
the basis of a complaint. It is the settled position that in
case of a complaint case, under Chapter XIX-B, only after
evidence for prosecution has been led in in terms of Section
244, question of accused seeking for discharge would arise
while disposing of an application seeking discharge in terms
of Section 245 of Cr.P.C. A plain statutory test as referred
to under Section 245(1) would be that the evidence referred
5
to in Section 244 which if unrebutted would warrant his
conviction, then the Magistrate shall discharge him.
6.
Paragraph 10 of the impugned order which
reflects the manner in which the matter has been dealt with
by the trial Court, is extracted as hereunder:
"I have gone through all the judgments in detail.
In all the decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
dealt with the scope and limitations of the Courts
when dealing with section 227 of Cr.P.C., which
says about discharge of the accused. The
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
has
held
that
when
exercising the power under section 227 of
Cr.P.C., marshalling and appreciation of evidence
is not in the domain of the Court. It is also
observed that charge can be framed also on the
basis of strong suspicion. Here, in the case on
hand also, the evidence on record both oral and
documentary
placed
by
the
complainant
demonstrates that the case for trial is made out.
The only question, at this stage, before this
Court is whether there are sufficient grounds to
frame charge and proceed in the case as per
law. Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions referred
above has said that the Judge should not make a
6
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial and while considering the
question
of
framing charges,
he
has
the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence
for the limited purpose of finding out whether or
not a prima facie case against the