- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6345 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. NAGESH C V S/O LATE VENKATAPPA V AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC:BUSINESS R/O CHIKKATHUR VILLAGE KUDUMAGALUR POST SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571236. 2. SMT CHETHANA B W/O NAGESH OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O CHIKKATHUR VILLAGE KUDUMAGALUR POST SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571236. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.R B DESHPANDE.,ADVOCATE Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 P2 DISMISSED AS ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 22.01.2025) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUSHALNAGARA POLICE STATION KODAGU DISTRICT-571234 (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001) …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.05.2018 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUSHALNAGAR IN C.C.NO.115/2017 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 323,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.07.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI IN CRL.RP.NO.130/2018 IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO SETTING ASIDE ORDER OF DISCHARGE IN REPECT OF OFFENCE U/S 354 OF IPC AND DIRECTING TRIAL COURT TO FRAME CHARGE FOR ALL THE OFFENCES AND PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL, AND BE PLEASED TO DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST THEM. AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioner No.1 being accused No.1 is seeking quashing of the order dated 31.05.2018 passed in CC No.115/2017 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar [hereinafter referred to as the, 'trial Court' for short], refusing to discharge the accused for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] and discharging the accused for the offence under section 354 read with 34 IPC and also the order dated 17.07.2018 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.130/2018 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri [hereinafter referred to as the 'revisional Court' for short] allowing the revision petition by setting - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 aside the order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the trial Court and consequently, dismissing the application seeking discharge. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the informant filed the first information against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 354, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and accordingly Crime No.206/2016 of Kushalnagara Police Station for the afore said offences came to be registered. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed for the same offences. 3. Petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed an application under section 239 CrPC before the learned Magistrate seeking discharge. The learned Magistrate passed the order on 31.05.2018 partly allowing the application and discharging the accused for the offence punishable - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 under section 354 of IPC read with section 34 IPC, but refusing to discharge them for offences punishable under sections 323, 504, and 506 read with section 34 of IPC. The said order was impugned by accused Nos.1 and 2 before the Revisional Court. 4. The Revisional Court while refusing to discharge the accused for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC, found fault with the trial Court in discharging the accused for the offence punishable under section 354 IPC as well. Accordingly, while allowing the revision petition in part, the revisional Court set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate discharging the accused for the offence punishable under section 354 read with Section 34 of IPC. As a result of which, the discharge application filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 came to be - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 dismissed in toto. Hence, the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, are before this Court. 5. During pendency of the petition, accused No.2 died and the petition filed by her stands abated. Accordingly, it is dismissed vide separate order dated 22.01.2025. 6. Heard Sri P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the materials on records. 7. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that once the application under section 239 CrPC came to be allowed in part by the learned Magistrate, and the accused were discharged for the offence under section 354 read with 34 IPC, they could not have been prosecuted for the offences under sections 504, 506, 323 read - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 with section 34 IPC as they are all non-cognizable offences. However, the revisional Court committed an error in dismissing the application under section 239 CrPC by setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate even though the State has not challenged the order discharging the accused for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC. 8. Admittedly, the State has not challenged the order dated 31.05.2018 discharging the accused for the offence under section 354 IPC. The copy of the Wound Certificate pertaining to the informant discloses that the Medical Officer at Govenrment Hospital, Kushalnagar, opined that she has not sustained any external injuries. Even though the allegations made in the first information is to be taken into consideration, it is stated that she was dragged by holding her hand and she was slapped. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 9. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether Petitioner No.1 has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S The injured being the victim lodged the first information making specific allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 354, 323 and 504 and 506 IPC read with section 34 of IPC, upon which, FIR came to be registered. The statement of the injured was recorded by the Police while she was taking treatment at the Primary Health Centre. After - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 investigation, the charge sheet was also filed for the same offences. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed application under section 239 CrPC seeking their discharge. However, the learned Magistrate allowed the application in part and discharged them for the offence under section 354 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Since they were not discharged for the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 IPC, they preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.130/2018. Admittedly, the State has not challenged the order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate discharging the accused for the offence under section 343 IPC. However, the Revisional Court found that even though the State has not challenged the said order, the order discharging the accused for the said offence is bad in law and therefore set aside the same. As a result of which, the application under section 239 CrPC filed by the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 accused seeking discharge came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this court. 10. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The Revisional Court committed error in reversing the order passed by the learned Magistrate in discharging the accused for the offence under section 354 IPC. It has ignored the fact that the State is not aggrieved by the said order and it has never challenged the same. 11. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Advocate, as the accused were discharged for the offence under section 354 read with 34 IPC, they could not have been prosecuted for the offences under sections 504, 506, 323 read with section 34 IPC as they are all non-cognizable offences and the procedure as contemplated under - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 section 155(2) of CrPC must have been followed. Learned counsel representing the accused could have brought this fact to the notice of the learned Magistrate and sought for passing appropriate orders. Instead of doing so, virtually by misleading the accused, who are petitioners herein, the advocate had preferred Criminal Revision Petition, which was wholly an unnecessary exercise which resulted in dismissal of the application under section 239 CrPC in toto and which forced the petitioners to approach this court by filing a Criminal Petition in the year 2018 and prosecute the same for about six years. This is a classic example for non-application of mind by the advocates. 12. Be that as it may, if the materials on record are taken into consideration in the light of the wound certificate pertaining to the informant, I am of the opinion that the charge against accused - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 No.1 is groundless and accused No.1 being the petitioner No.1, is entitled for discharge. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar in CC No.115/2017 insofar as it relates to dismissing the application for discharge for offences punishable under sections 323, 504 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed. (iii) The order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri in Crl.Rev.No.130/2018 insofar as it relates to - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2660 CRL.P No. 6345 of 2018 setting aside the order of discharge for offence under section 354 IPC, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE NV