- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11624 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1665 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MASIVELU S/O ARUMUGAM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.753 12TH CROSS, KAPILANAGARA HEGGANAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU KARNATAKA – 560 091. 2. MAHVEER KUMAR T. BHOJANI S/O S.S.T. TEJRAJ BHOJANI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SRIGANDHAKAVILU HEGGANAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU KARNATAKA – 560 091. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJGOPAL NAGAR POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP A/W. SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11624 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2024 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 (FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2024 IN S.C.NO.549/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-53) THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C SEEKING THE RELIEF OF DISCHARGE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC 1806. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This revision petition is filed against the order of rejection of application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant and deceased are husband and wife and they have let out their one portion of the portion of the house to accused on lease basis. Since, the wife of accused No.1 always picking up quarrel and always causing nuisance in the vicinity, the complainant and deceased approached to vacate the house. But, the accused have forced the complainant and her husband to extend the lease period. The deceased was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11624 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2024 working in the factory of accused No.2, both accused Nos.1 and 2 forcibly took signature of deceased on the agreement of lease by extending the lease period accused harassed him. The deceased had expressed the complainant about this incident and unable to bear the torture imposed by the accused, the accused on 26.12.2015 committed suicide. Based on the above said complaint lodged by C.W.1, who is wife of the deceased, the respondent-Police have registered the FIR and after completion of the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused. 3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners before the Trial Court is that in the absence of any material with regard to abetment of suicide is concerned, there cannot be any criminal prosecution against both the petitioners and there must be prima facie case to proceed against accused persons and in the absence of such prima facie case, there cannot be any criminal prosecution and nothing is placed on record before the Trial Court that there is an abetment. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that though there was a death note when spot mahazar was conducted, but it is stated in the death note that no one is responsible for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11624 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2024 committing suicide and the same is not placed along with the charge-sheet and suppressing the same, charge-sheet is filed invoking the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Learned counsel would submit that the allegation in the charge-sheet also is that signature was obtained forcibly by accused Nos.1 and 2 for extension of lease period and allegation in the complaint is that the complainant asked both the petitioners to vacate the premises and also contend that other allegation accused No.2 is that the deceased was working under accused No.2. Hence, accused Nos.1 and 2 were open to extend the lease, but no such document as regards extension of lease is placed before the Trial Court along with the charge- sheet and in the absence of any material, there cannot be any criminal prosecution. Hence, filed an application for discharge. However, the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application in coming to conclusion that it is an established and cardinal principal of law that charge may be framed on the basis of the materials of the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer and also reason given that there is sufficient material to frame the charge is found, then the Court can frame the charge against the accused. Learned counsel - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11624 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2024 also would contend that the except stating that there are sufficient material found to frame the charge, nothing is considered while passing such order and no reasons are assigned. 4. When this Court heard the matter, directed the learned Additional SPP to secure the entire records whether any death note. Learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State not disputes the fact that at the time of conducting the spot mahazar, they found death note. But, now, the present Investigating Officer is also before the Court and he says that nothing is traced with regard to the said death note and earlier Investigating Officer drawn mahazar, wherein specifically mentioned that in the death note, it is declared by the victim himself that no one is responsible for his death. Learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State fairly makes the submission that the Trial Court has not assigned reason while rejecting the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11624 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2024 (1) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and whether it requires interference of this Court? (2) What order? Point No.(1) 6. Having perused the charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2, while filing the same, specific charge is made that accused Nos.1 and 2 that deceased was working under accused No.2 and both accused Nos.1 and 2 forcibly took signature of deceased on the agreement of lease by extending the lease period and harassed him and document was obtained for a period of another three years and caused threat on the deceased not to come to the job. Hence, he committed suicide. 7. It is settled law that while considering the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Court has to look into the material whether Investigating Officer has collected material to proceed against the accused. The law is also settled that defence of the accused cannot be considered at the time of considering the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. However, there must be a prima facie material to show - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11624 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2024 that the accused persons have indulged in such act. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to notice of this Court when spot mahazar was drawn when the death note was seized by drawing spot mahazar, wherein it is categorically stated by the victim in the death note that no one is responsible for his death and the same is not found along with the charge-sheet and suppressing the same, charge-sheet was filed. Apart from that, allegation is that lease period was extended for a period of three years by causing threat and to that effect also, no lease document is placed before the Trial Court which consists the signature of the deceased to show that they have obtained the signature and only document was prepared, but there was no signature. Hence, question of humiliation does not arise and causing abetment also does not arise. 8. Having perused the order of the Trial Court also, no doubt the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that it is established and cardinal principal of law that charge may be framed on the materials of the charge-sheet, even Trial Court comes to such a conclusion, considering the submission made by the learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State, nothing is considered by the Trial Court what are the material available - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11624 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2024 before the Court to frame the charge and even for rejection of the application, no reason assigned and learned SPP also fairly submitted that no reason assigned by the Trial Court while rejecting the application and unless there is material before the Court to proceed against the accused, there cannot be criminal prosecution against the petitioners to frame the charge for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. 9. 9. Having considered the grounds which have been urged in the revision and considering the material on record and also submission of the learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State and in the absence of prima facie material, there cannot be any criminal prosecution against the petitioners herein and no reasons are assigned considering the material on record by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioners have made out the ground to invoke the revisional jurisdiction and to set aside the order of the Trial Court. Therefore, I answer point No.(1) as ‘affirmative’. Point No.(2) 10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11624 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2024 ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 are allowed and they are discharged for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34