- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1129 CRL.P No. 3212 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3212 OF 2022 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONAJE POLICE STATION, MANGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP) AND: 1. SMT. HEMALATHA (49) YEARS, W/O SUPRITH RAI, R/O. FLAT NO.302, RAMPRASAD APARTMENT, OPPOSITE TO E.S.I. OFFICE, SHIVABHAG ROAD, KADRI, MANGALURU - 575 003. 2. NALINAKSHI SHETTY, (73) YEARS, W/O. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, R/O. D.NO.1-14, KANAKOORU HOUSE, KONAJE POST, BELMA VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK - 574 199 …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.07.2021 IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.52/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1129 CRL.P No. 3212 of 2022 AND B. CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC (VII COURT) AT MANGALURU C.C.NO.2366/2019. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The State has preferred this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Crl.Revision Petition No.52/2021 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, DK Mangaluru, allowing the revision, consequently, allowing the application under Section 239 of Cr.PC filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 being accused Nos.2 and 3 in CC No.2366/2019 and discharging them for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the DP Act') 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant has filed the complaint against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. The FIR came to be registered for the above said offences and after - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1129 CRL.P No. 3212 of 2022 investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and registered CC.No.2366/2019 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the above said offences. Respondents being accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.PC seeking their discharge. The said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2020. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents have preferred Cr.R.P.No.52/2021 before the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Court. The revisional Court passed the impugned order on 23.07.2021 allowing the revision petition and the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 239 of Cr.PC and discharging them for the above said offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this petition. 3. Heard Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner. Perused the materials on record. 4. In view of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1129 CRL.P No. 3212 of 2022 “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to set aside the order passed by the revisional Court?" My answer to the above point is in ‘negative' for the following: R E A S O N S 5. The informant has filed the first information making specific allegations against accused No.1, her husband and also against the respondents, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the informant. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 ill-treated the informant and later, accused No.1 went to Germany without informing the informant. As per the complaint, the respondents have ill-treated her. Except making such bald statements, there are absolutely no other specific allegations made to constitute any of the offences. The revisional Court formed an opinion that the allegations are against accused No.1 and respondents have never resided along with the informant at any point of time after her marriage in the year 2011. Under such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the revisional - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1129 CRL.P No. 3212 of 2022 Court. It has taken into consideration the allegations made by the informant. The materials that are placed before the Court formed an opinion that there are no prima-facie materials to prosecute the respondents herein. I do not find any illegality in the order. 6. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27