- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12053 CRL.P No. 1434 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1434 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. MANIKIRAN G.C, S/O G.C. HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT, NO.6-2-637, LAXMI NIVAS, OPPOSITE TVS SHOWROOM, CHINTHAL BASTHI, KAIRATHABAD, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE - 500 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANIKIRAN G.C, PARTY IN PERSON) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY KADUGONDANAHALLI POLICE, BENGALURU. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. DR. DIVYA YUVARAJ, W/O MANIKIRAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 104, 3RD CROSS, PILLANNA GARDEN, 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2024 Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12053 CRL.P No. 1434 of 2025 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.655/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SEC.498-A, 504 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU (CCH-71) REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.207 OF CRPC VIDE ANNEXURE C AND THEREBY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The petitioner states that he is a permanent resident of Hyderabad and is not conversant with the Kannada language. Therefore, he claims entitlement to translated copies of the charge sheet and all annexed documents, as provided under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12053 CRL.P No. 1434 of 2025 3. In support of his claim, he relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad & Anr., reported in (2023) 14 S.C.R. 306 : 2023 INSC 770. 4. The learned HCGP for the respondent-State submits that there is no provision mandating the supply of translated copies of the charge sheet, including its annexures, and has sought the dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Apex Court, in Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), at paragraph 19, has ruled that when copies of the report and documents are supplied to the accused under Section 207 and/or Section 208 of the Cr.P.C., the accused has the opportunity to raise an objection if he does not understand the language in which the final report, statements, or documents are written. However, such an objection must be raised at the earliest possible stage. In such cases, if the accused is appearing in person and wishes to defend himself without opting - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12053 CRL.P No. 1434 of 2025 for legal aid, there may be a requirement to provide a translated version of the charge sheet and relevant documents. This, however, is subject to the accused satisfying the Court that he is unable to understand the language in which the charge sheet has been submitted. Conversely, if the accused is represented by an advocate who fully understands the language and the charge sheet, there is no requirement to furnish translated copies, as the advocate can explain the contents of the charge sheet to the accused. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has categorically stated that he is a permanent resident of Hyderabad and is not conversant with the Kannada language. Therefore, he asserts that translated copies of the charge sheet and annexed documents are necessary for him to defend himself effectively. ORDER i. Accordingly, petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Spl.C.No.655/2022 on the file of LXX Addl. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12053 CRL.P No. 1434 of 2025 City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru(CCH-71) is hereby set aside. iii. The learned Magistrate is directed to supply translated copies of the charge sheet and the documents annexed to it to the petitioner. Until the translated copies are supplied, the framing of charges shall be deferred. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK