- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100236 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. NEELAPPA S/O. FAKIRAPPA OBAJIHALLI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. JOURNALIST EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER OF NUTHANA SUDDI WEEKLY NEWSPAPER, R/O. #641/18, UTTAMCHAND LAYOUT, AVARAGERE, DAVANAGERE CITY (FROM 09.06.2015) 2. RAJU S/O. PARASAPPA, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. CHIKKAMEGALAGERE, POTHALAKATTE, HIREMEGALAGERI, DAVANAGERE, NOW AT: CHITRADURGA, NEAR BASAVATATVA MAHAVIDYALAYA, SHRI MURUGAMUTT, CHITRADURGA-577502. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI AMIRKHAN A. PATHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RANEBENNUR TOWN POLICE, R/BY H.C.G.P. DHARWAD, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN S.C.NO.64/2016 DATED 25.01.2017 FOR TGE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SECTIONS 109, 306, 498(A) R/W. 34 OF IPC., PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RANEBENNUR AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDE: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Amir Khan A. Pathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Revision petitioners who are accused Nos.2 and 3 in SC No.64/2016 are challenging the rejection of application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. Based on the FIR lodged by Paramagouda Tembadamani, Ranebennur Town Police registered a case in Crime No.25/2016 on 30.01.2016 for the offences punishable under Section 109, 306, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC against Nijalingappa, Neelappa and Raja. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017 3.2. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that daughter of the complainant Shreya was married to Nijalingappa @ Vijaya (accused No.1) on 23.03.2014. Marriage was registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Harapanahalli. Thereafter, she joined a matrimonial home. 3.3. Accused Nos.2 and 3 being the brothers of accused No.1 did not treat said Shreya in a proper manner and they were harassing her physically and mentally. Unable to bear the said harassment, she said to have committed suicide in the intervening night of 29.01.2016 and 30.01.2016 in the rented house in Ranebennur. 4. Based on the said complaint, police registered the case and after investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 306, 109, 498A, read with Section 34 of IPC. 5. Learned Principal District Judge after taking cognizance of the offences made over the said case to II - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri to sit at Ranebennur. 6. After the case was made over to learned District Judge at Ranebennur, learned District Judge took cognizance and summoned the accused. 7. Accused No.2 to 3 filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. contending that accused are totally innocent of the offences alleged against them and there are no prima facie materials to proceed against them. 8. It is also contended by them that merely on the hearsay statements of the prosecution witnesses, the police have falsely implicated accused Nos.2 and 3 in the incident. 9. It is further pointed out that there is no specific time and date of the alleged torture and abatement or instigation by accused Nos.2 and 3 to accused No.1 so as to attract the offence under Section 109 of IPC. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017 10. It is also contended that accused No.2 is a journalist by profession and is the editor of ‘Nutana Suddi’ a weekly newspaper. It is further contended by him that he is residing in Davanagere District and therefore, alleged harassment is totally imaginary and accused No.1 was responsible for the alleged harassment if any and unnecessarily accused Nos.2 and 3 have been falsely implicated in the incident. 11. It is also contended on behalf of accused No.3 that he is studying in Basavatatva Mahavidyalaya in Chitradurga District as a distance education student and he is working in a mobile shop in Chitradurga District. 12. Therefore, his involvement in the incident is highly improbable and arraigning accused No.3 in the incident is with the malafide intention without there being proper proof and thus, sought for discharge of accused Nos.2 and 3 from the case. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017 13. Prosecution opposed the said application by filing detailed written objections. It is contended that prima facie materials have been collected by the investigation agency through the statements of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, sought for dismissal of the application. 14. Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of both the sides on the said application and by order dated 25.01.2017, dismissed the application filed by the accused. 15. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court in this revision petition on following grounds:  It is submitted that, the prosecution not made out any prima-facie case against the petitioners. Further as per the entire Charge Sheet there is no specific allegation of over act against any of the petitioners. The witnesses sighted in the charge sheet are hearsay witnesses of the complainant, The complainant had only uttered doubt about the petitioners and during investigation the fact of petitioner no.1 staying at Davangere and petitioner no.2 being student staying at Chitradurga was known to the investigating officer, but deliberately inserted the names of the petitioners. Therefore, it is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017 crystal clear that, in view of these facts allowing the court below in continuing the further proceedings in S.C No. 64/2017 would amount to an abuse of the process of court. Therefore the proceedings pending before the IIND Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranebennur in S.C.No.64/2016 against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.  It is submitted that, In the complaint the complainant has not at all stated any allegations against the petitioners and the deceased Shreya has also not complained anything about the petitioners to his father or mother or anyone, and looking to the entire chargesheet there are no ingredients of the alleged offences and the alleged offences does not attract the petitioners. Wherefore, it is prayed to this Hon'ble court to quash the proceedings pending on the file of IIND Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranebennur in S.C.No.64/2016 against the petitioners.  It is submitted that, the petitioner no. 1 was staying in Davangere from 9/6/2015 and running his News paper, petitioner no.2 had also lodged complaint before Arasikere police harapanahalli taluka on 14/9/2014 in Cr.No. 146/2014, there were no talks between petitioner no.2 with his family members and he has not visited them. Partition of the joint family property was also done on 26/5/2014. All these grounds were ought to be considered by the Court below and allowed the discharge application filed by the petitioners to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of Justice.  It is submitted that, the petitioner no.2 is a student and is of young age staying away from his village from 2013 pursuing his studies, working in mobile shop. These all material aspects are not considered by the Court below and rejected the discharge application. Wherefore, it is prayed to this Hon'ble Court to quash the proceedings pending on the file of IIND Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranebennur in S.C.No.64/2016 against the petitioners in the ends of justice. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017  It is submitted that, the accused no.1 and deceased were in love with each other and they got married and they registered their marriage in Sub-Registrar office, every thing was between the accused no.1 and deceased Shreya, his wife. The petitioners are not staying or having any sought of contact with the accused no.1. The accused no.1 and deceased Shreya were having no talks or anything with the petitioners, The complainant knowing these all facts created a false and imaginary story and filed the complaint only on susupicion ground against the accused no.1 and Petitioners before the Ranebennur Town Police Station. On this ground also it is most humbly prayed to this Hon'ble Court to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners.  It is submitted that, the petitioners are totally ipso-facto innocent for the alleged crime. There is no direct or indirect connection to the alleged crime. The complainant to harass and dismay the petitioners filed a false and imaginary complaint before the Ranebennur Town Police Station. There is no prima-facie case made out against the petitioners.  It is submitted that, the deceased shreya was staying at Ranebennur in a rented house to pursue her studies, and as per the complainant he came to know that Shreya and accused no.1 arrived to the house yesterday night and were not seen from the past week. These all facts would have considered by the Court below and would have allow the discharge application filed by petitioner.  It is submitted that, the petitioners had nothing to do with the accused no.1 and deceased shreya, petitioners were working hard in their respective fields in their working place, the complainant intentionally knowing all the true facts only to harass and make suffer the entire family members filed a frivolous, vexatious and oppressive complaint and the complaint did not disclose any offence by the petitioners. Further as per the entire Charge Sheet there is no material or prima-facie case - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017 made out against the petitioners. And there is no specific allegation or over act against any of the petitioners. Wherefore, there would be justification for interference and is prayed for interference of this Hon'ble Court.  It is submitted that, the order of the court below is wholly illegal capricious and not sustainable either in law or on facts and as such the same is liable to set aside. 16. Sri.Amir Khan A. Pathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that accused No.2 being a journalist and resident of Davangere, had no role in the alleged harassment which could be termed as an abetment to commit suicide. Therefore, continuation of the criminal case against accused No.2 is nothing but a futile exercise and sought for allowing the revision petition. 17. Insofar as the role played by accused No.3 is concerned, he would contend that accused No.3 being the student and he is working in Chitradurga in a mobile shop. As such, at no stretch of imagination, he could be arraigned as an accused in the alleged crime in the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017 absence of any clinching material on record and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 18. Per contra, Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent opposes the revision grounds. 19. He would contend that mere fact of showing that accused No.2 is the resident of Davangere and accused No.3 being the resident of Chitradurga would not ipso facto make out a ground for the revision petitioner to walk away with an order of discharge; especially, when the investigation agency is able to collect such necessary material so as to proceed against the petitioners with the criminal case and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 20. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 21. On such perusal of the material on record, registered marriage of deceased Shreya with accused No.1 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017 is not in dispute. The ground for discharge that is urged by accused No.2 that he is the resident of Davanagere and accused No.3 is a student in Basavatatva Mahavidyalaya in Chitradurga and working in mobile shop at Chitradurga is based on photocopy of documents placed on record by the accused. 22. However, fact of accused No.2 being resident of Davanagere and accused No.3 is residing at Chitradurga would be sufficient to allow this application for discharge is a moot question that requires to be looked into. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have produced the photocopy of the documents to substantiate that they are the residents of Davangere and Chitradurga. 23. Likewise, the statements made by the prosecution witnesses is taken into account by the learned Trial Judge wherein the witnesses have stated involvement of present petitioners before the Investigation Officer. Complainant has stated in the complaint that accused No.1 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017 is ill treating, harassing and torturing Shreya at the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3. 24. Further, it is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that at the time of considering the discharge application, material evidence placed on record by the prosecution agency which is part of the charge sheet alone to be looked into and not the documents that is placed on record as a defence. 25. In the case on hand, nothing prevented accused Nos.2 and 3 to place on record about the proof of residence at Dvanagere and Chitradurga when they were enquired by the police. Admittedly, along with the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., a photocopy of residential proof is furnished. 26. Following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Debendranath Padhi v. State of Orissa reported in AIR 2005 SC 359, the documents placed on record by the defence cannot be taken into account while - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4965 CRL.RP No. 100236 of 2017 appreciating the arguments put forth on behalf of the accused seeking discharge. 27. Therefore, learned Trial Judge though not referred to the principles of law enunciated in the case of Debendranath padhi supra, has reached to right conclusion that the material placed on record by the prosecution alone to be looked into for considering the application filed by the accused seeking discharge. 28. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any grounds whatsoever muchless good grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Judge. 29. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Revision grounds are meritless and hereby dismissed. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA/LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 40