- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3699 CRL.RP No. 1327 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1327 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. CHRISDAS S/O S.B.MARIYADAS AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT No.325, JALAVAYU TOWER NGEF LAYOUT BENGALURU-560056 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED SUJATH MEHADI, A/W SRI. SANJAY KUMAR A., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION HALASUR SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU-560 038 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. DR. T.R. YESHODA W/O S.C.DAS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.170, 9TH CROSS 1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3699 CRL.RP No. 1327 of 2024 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE VIDE ORDER DATED 25/06/2024 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 239 OF CR.P.C IN THE CC NO.53601/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE HONB’LE X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AND TO DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER MR.CHRISDAS, FROM ALL CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST HIM IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIR NO.183/2019 REGISTERED AT INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST HIM, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This revision petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to set-aside the order dated 25.06.2024 passed on the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C in C.C.No.53601/2020 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3699 CRL.RP No. 1327 of 2024 pass such other orders passed as deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. The main contention of this revision petitioner before this Court that this revision petitioner is the husband of accused No.1 and accused No.1 is wife of this revision petitioner and she is running spa and saloon in the name of Unisex Saloon Spa (hereinafter referred to as saloon). The prosecution has implicated accused No.2 who is nowhere concerned with the said saloon. There is no any direct allegation against the revision petitioner and only on the strength of statement of some of the witnesses, he has been arrayed as accused and discharge application is also filed by this revision petitioner contending that the saloon not stands in the name of this revision petitioner. 4. The counsel would submits that the trade license renewal certificate is also very clear that his name is not found in the renewal certificate. This Court when the matter was heard while granting the stay in respect of this - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3699 CRL.RP No. 1327 of 2024 revision petition is concerned directed to verify whether the saloon stands in the name of this revision petitioner also. The counsel clearly submits that on verification not stands in the name of this revision petitioner. However, the counsel would contend that CW3 and CW4 have made the statements that this revision petitioner is also the owner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents, no dispute with regard to the fact that this revision petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2 and an application is filed on the very same ground before the Trial Court. The Trial Court by considering the material on record, instead of considering the material under Section 285, only invoked the section 337 and Section 352 coming to the conclusion that material discloses against this revision petitioner to frame the charge. Having taken note of the statement of CW4 and CW5 witnesses, only they states that this revision petitioner is also the owner and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3699 CRL.RP No. 1327 of 2024 the fact that documentary evidence discloses that he is not the owner and the fact that accused No.1 running the said saloon with the help of accused No.3 who is an employee and incident was taken place while giving service to the complainant in the saloon and when such material is collected and taken note of the fact that this petitioner is not the owner and also he was not present at the time of incident. When such being the case, merely because CW4 and CW5 makes such statements that he is also the owner and when the documentary evidence reveals that he was not the owner. Hence, it is a fit case to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order of the Trial Court and Trial Court comes to the conclusion that prima facie case made out against this revision petitioner and also reason was given that it is well settled law that at the stage of filing of charge, the defense of the accused cannot be putforth. No doubt it is also the settled law that at the time of framing of charge, defense cannot be set-out and here in this case, it is not the case of defense at all. The fact he has been falsely implicated and without any - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3699 CRL.RP No. 1327 of 2024 material also even the I.O also not collected any material that whether the license stands in the name of this revision petitioner and only he has been arrayed as accused on the basis of onus statement of CW3 and CW4 and in the absence of any documentary evidence that he was a owner, he cannot be prosecuted in a criminal case based on the statement of CW3 and CW4. The fact that he was not present at the time of incident, only implicating him as accused that he is the husband of accused No.1 and merely because he is the husband of accused No.1, he cannot be subjected for criminal prosecution and hence the Trial Court fails to take note of the said fact and comes to the conclusion that defense cannot be attributed while considering the discharge application and no dispute with regard to the principles that defense cannot be considered at the time of considering the discharge application. However, it is the duty of the Court to look into the material collected by I.O while proceeding against a person in a criminal prosecution and no such documents are collected as he was a owner. When such being the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3699 CRL.RP No. 1327 of 2024 case, the proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process only based on the oral statement of CW4 and CW5. In the absence of prima facie material, the Trial Court ought to have exercised the discretion while exercising the power of discharge. Hence, it requires interference. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Revision Petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings initiated against accused No.2 that is revision petitioner herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55