1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4625/2020

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI E. SWAMY GOWDA,

S/O LATE EREGOWDA,

AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS,

NO.3, 1^ST FLOOR, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX,

M.G. ROAD, KANAKAPURA TOWN,

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562117.

2.

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHANDRU,

AGE 45 YEARS,

S/O LATE M. MAHADEVAIAH,

R/AT 2^ND CROSS, RANGANATHA BADAVANE,

BEHIND MUNICIPAL HIGH SCHOOL,

KANAKAPURA TOWN,

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562117.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT,

THROUGH KANAKAPURA TOWN POLICE,

KANAKAPURA TALUK,

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562117.

2.

SMT. SUVARNAMMA,

D/O LATE HOMBA HANUMAIAH,

AGE 39 YEARS,

2

R/AT AVARAGERE VILLAGE,

BIDADI HOBLI,

RAMANAGARA TQ. AND DIST–562109.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R-1,

R-2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2020

PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAMANAGARA TO SIT AT KANAKAPURA IN S.C.NO.5006/2016 AND

CONSEQUENTLY

DISCHARGE

THE

PETITIONERS

FROM

THE

CHARGE SHEET IN S.C.NO.5006/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114, 498(A), 504, 506, 307 R/W

34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to set aside the order dated 18.05.2020 passed by the

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara to sit at

Kanakapura in S.C.No.5006/2016 and consequently to discharge

the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 114,

498A, 504, 506 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.

Both the petitioners had filed an application under

Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court to discharge them

3

on the ground that there are no material against them. The

learned Trial Judge while considering the material on record

comes to a conclusion that the charge-sheet makes out prima

facie case against accused Nos.1 and 2. The question of giving

benefit at this stage does not arise. Hence, the present petition

is filed before this Court.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

that in the complaint, there are no allegations against petitioner

No.2, except making the allegation that at the instance of

petitioner No.1, threat was caused to the complainant. The Trial

Judge failed to take note of the material on record against the

petitioner No.2 and committed an error in dismissing the

discharge application.

4.

The

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

appearing for the State would submit that in the charge-sheet,

specific allegation is made against accused No.2 that he also

joined along with accused No.1 in demanding the money and

caused life threat.

4

5.

Having heard both the respective counsel, the

offences invoked against the accused persons is under Sections

114, 498A, 504, 506 and 307 of IPC and also under Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The offences invoked

against petitioner No.2 is under Section 114 of IPC that he

instigated accused No.1 and Section 506 of IPC.

6.

Having considered the contents of the complaint,

allegation is made against petitioner No.2 that he instigated

petitioner No.1 telling that the complainant cannot do anything

against the advocate and that he will secure the rowdy elements

and teach a lesson to her brothers. No doubt, in the charge-

sheet an allegation is made that he also joined along with

accused No.1 in demanding the additional dowry. When there is

no such allegation in the complaint except the allegation of