1 Crl.

RP 835/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.835 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY MULBAGAL POLICE
... PETITIONER

(BY SRI: K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

AND:

SRI NARASIMHALU
S/O DANDODI MUNIRATHNAM NAIDU
AGED 35 YEARS
KOTHAPETA
PUNGANOOR TOWN, A P
... RESPONDENT

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ

WITH 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 01.04.2009 PASSED IN SC NO.143/2008 PASSED
BY THE PRL.SJ, KOLAR AND DISCHARGING THE ACCUSED
NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 304B READ WITH 34
OF IPC AND 3, 4 AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION UNDER
SECTION 227 OF THE CR.P.C AND REMAND THE CASE
NO.143 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SJ, KOLAR
FOR TRIAL ON ITS MERITS IS ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
 2 Crl.RP 835/2009

THIS CRL.RP. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Aggrieved by the order of discharge of the

respondent in respect of the offence under

Sections 498A and 304-B IPC, the present revision

petition has been filed.

2. The facts reveal that the petitioner

herein is the husband of Savithri (deceased) and

she committed suicide. On a complaint filed for

the offence punishable under Sections 498A and

304-B IPC, the respondent who is the husband and

accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the parents-in-law

were chargesheeted and the case against the

respondent was spilt up. The trial was held

against parents-in-law of the deceased in Sessions

Case No.3/2007. PWs.1 to 7 and 10 who are the

close relative of the deceased and the neighbors

have turned hostile. The other witnesses were

official witnesses. As there was no evidence of

 3 Crl.RP 835/2009

any cruelty and harassment and as all the relative

witnesses have turned hostile, accused Nos.2 and 3

were acquitted by the Sessions Court and no appeal

has been preferred by the State.

After the respondent was secured, Sessions

Case No.143/2008 was registered on the basis of

spilt up chargesheet and at that time, the Trial

Court heard the counsel and under the impugned

order discharged the accused. It is against the

said order, this revision has been preferred.

3. Heard the learned High Court Government

Pleader.

4. The records in Session Case No.3/2007

were secured. Perusal of the evidence therein

reveals that the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10.

Except PWs.8 and 9, all other witnesses who are

the close relatives and neighbors of the deceased

have turned hostile. They have stated in their

 4 Crl.RP 835/2009

evidence that the relationship between the

deceased Savithri, her husband and parents-in-law

were cordial. They have not stated anything about

the cruelty and harassment before the Court while

their evidence was recorded. The other two

witnesses are official witnesses, their evidence

is of no help to the prosecution so far as the

proof of cruelty and harassment is concerned. It

is in these circumstances, the Trial Court has

granted an order of discharge. No purpose will be

served if the trial is held against the respondent

and it would be waste of judicial time.

Therefore, I do not find any justifiable grounds

to interfere with the order of discharge.

Consequently, the revision petition fails and

it is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-
JUDGE

*bgn/-