- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12528 CRL.RP No. 144 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 144 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 2. SMT JAYAMMA W/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MARAGONDANAHALLI, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP-STATE; SMT.S.THEJASHWINI, ADVOCATE FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12528 CRL.RP No. 144 of 2023 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-46) THEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 U/S 227 OF CODE SEEKING DISCHARGE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 IN SC.NO.347/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-46) FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 498A, 304B R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 & 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER In this petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C, petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 have challenged the impugned order passed by the trial Court, rejecting the application filed by accused Nos.2 and 3, including the petitioners seeking discharge. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12528 CRL.RP No. 144 of 2023 3. Accused No.1 is the husband of deceased Geetha Lakshmi. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents, accused Nos.4 and 5 are the brothers of accused No.1. Accused Nos.6 to 8 are the brothers of accused No.2. The marriage of accused No.1 and deceased took place on 19.05.2010. Alleging that accused No.1 is working as a Government Teacher and therefore, accused Nos.1 to 5 demanded and received dowry in the form of gold, ornaments and marriage was performed in a grand manner. However, after the marriage when deceased started living in the house of accused persons, they harassed and ill treated her for getting additional dowry, relieved her of her ornaments to purchase a second hand Tata Sumo vehicle and used to assault her. Accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with another woman. He used to assault her and ultimately left her in her parental home. He used to call her over phone and abuse her. 4. It is further alleged that even though in the Panchayat dated 20.04.2011, accused promised to take - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12528 CRL.RP No. 144 of 2023 back the deceased to the matrimonial home and return her ornaments, they did not keep up with the promise. On the other hand on 02.06.2011, accused Nos.1 to 5 tried to abduct her and relieved her of four gold bangles, abused her in filthy language and also gave threat to her life. They left the place after people gathered. With these allegations deceased Geetha Lakshmi filed a complaint against accused Nos.1 to 5. However, after investigation, charge sheet in CC.No.31686/2011 came to be filed only against accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 5 were dropped. The said proceedings are going on. 5. In this background, while staying in the house of her parents, On 07.01.2013, Geetha Lakshmi committed suicide by hanging from the ceiling fan. She has left a death note. In this regard, the mother of the deceased filed complaint against accused Nos.1 to 8, reiterating the earlier allegations made in the complaint filed by deceased Geetha Lakshmi. It is further alleged that accused No.1 used to call deceased from coin booth - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12528 CRL.RP No. 144 of 2023 and gave threat to take back the complaint filed against him and because of this reason, Geetha Lakshmi committed suicide. After conducting detailed investigation, the investigating officer has filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act. 6. However, the proceedings against accused Nos.4 to 8 came to be quashed by this Court. 7. After committal accused Nos.1 to 3 filed application under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking discharge which came to be rejected by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed this petition contending that the case of the prosecution does not indicate any role or involvement of accused Nos.2 and 3 in commission of the alleged offences. In the first information lodged by CW-1, there are no allegations against them, leading to the deceased committing suicide. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12528 CRL.RP No. 144 of 2023 The death note left by the deceased only makes allegations against accused No.1 and there is no reference to accused Nos.2 and 3 of having ill treated or harassed the deceased. 7.1 Even the statements of CW-2 Venkatachalapathy, CW-9 Chandrakala also does not implicate accused Nos.2 and 3. When the concerned police have given clean chit to accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498, 323 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act, again filing charge sheet for the same offences is opposed to law. There are no material to frame charge against the accused Nos.2 and 3. No prima facie case is made out against them. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order is not sustainable and pray to allow the petition and discharge them. 8. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the following decisions: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12528 CRL.RP No. 144 of 2023 (i) Chabi Karmakar & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal (Chabi Karmakar)1 (ii) Shoor Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Shoor Singh)2 (iii) Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Charan Singh)3 (iv) Satbir Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana (Satbir Singh)4 9. On the other hand, learned HCGP, assisted by learned counsel representing defacto complainant supported the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the petition. 10. In support of his argument learned HCGP has relied upon the following decision: (i) Dr.Mohankumar M Vs. State of Karnataka (Dr.Mohankumar)5 11. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record. 1 (2025) 1 SCC 398 2 (2024) SCC Online SC 2595 3 2023 SCC Online SC 454 4 (2021) 6 SCC 1 5 Crl.RP.No.118/2024 Dt: 20.12.2024 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12528 CRL.RP No. 144 of 2023 12. Thus, accused Nos.2 and 3 who are parents-in- law of deceased Geetha Lakshmi are seeking discharge on the ground that based on the complaint filed by Geetha Lakshmi, though a case came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 5 including the petitioners in Cr.No.102/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506-B r/w Section 34 I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act, after detailed investigation charge sheet was filed only against accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. The remaining accused including the petitioners were given a clean chit so far as the allegations that Geetha Lakshmi was subjected to cruelty, demanding dowry by them. 13. There are specific allegations that before 20.04.2011, Geetha Lakshmi was sent to her matrimonial home and on 02.06.2011, a failed attempt was made by the accused persons to abduct her. In fact Geetha Lakshmi filed Crl.Misc.21/2012, wherein she has stated that since - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12528 CRL.RP No. 144 of 2023 from the date she was removed from the matrimonial home, she is residing in her parental home. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioners to harass and ill treat her, especially after they were dropped from the charge sheet in C.C.No.31686/2011. 14. Unfortunately, Geetha Lakshmi committed suicide on 07.01.2013. According to the prosecution, she has left a death note stating that she is committing suicide due to the physical and mental harassment meted out by her husband. Again she states that her husband and parents-in-law are responsible for her committing suicide. After Geetha Lakshmi committed suicide, her mother Rathnamma filed a complaint once again reiterating the allegations made in the earlier complaint in Cr.No.102/2011 regarding the dowry demand, harassment for dowry, sending deceased to her parental home and despite Panchayath, she was not taken back to the matrimonial home and accused No.1 is having illicit relationship. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12528 CRL.RP No. 144 of 2023 14.1 In addition to the said allegations, it is also alleged that accused No.1 was frequently calling the deceased from coin booth over her cell phone and give threat to her life, if she fails to withdraw the complaint and because of this reason, Geetha Lakshmi committed suicide. So far as the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C is concerned, the specific allegations are against accused No.1 only. In fact remaining accused i.e., accused Nos.4 to 8 have approached this Court and the proceedings against them are quashed. 15. With the dropping of accused Nos.2 and 3 from the charge sheet in C.C.No.31686/2011 and in the absence of allegations regarding they abetting deceased to commit suicide on account of subjecting her to cruelty or harassment or in connection with demand for dowry, there is no prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. These allegations are there only against accused No.1, against whom there is charge sheet in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12528 CRL.RP No. 144 of 2023 C.C.No.31686/2011 and also the complaint and statement of witnesses with regard to he making telephonic calls giving threat to the deceased. Therefore, decision in Dr.Mohankumar, relied upon by learned HCGP is not applicable to the case on hand. 16. In the light of accused Nos.2 and 3 being dropped from C.C.No.31686/2011 and in the absence of material to attract Section 304-B of I.P.C, accused Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for discharge and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 14.12.2022 in S.C.No.347/2021 on the file of XLV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting the application filed - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12528 CRL.RP No. 144 of 2023 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C by accused Nos.2 and 3 is set aside. (iii) Consequently, the said application is allowed. Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are discharged. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56