- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591 CRL.RP No. 100142 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100142 OF 2016 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: KALLANAGOUDA @ RAVI S/O KUBERAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: L.I.C AGENT, R/O: NAINAPUR, TAL: RON, DIST: GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.C. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. NANDA @ KAVITA W/O. KALLANAGOUDA @ RAVI PATIL, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O: MUDHOL, TAL: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498(A) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE DATED 24/06/2011 PASSED IN C.C.NO.410/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. J.M.F.C. MUDHOL, WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, SITTING AT JAMAKHANDI IN CRL.A NO.50/2011 DATED 27/06/2016, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND SET HIM AT LIBERTY BY SETTING ASIDETHE ABOVE SAID JUDGMENTS. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.29 11:52:30 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591 CRL.RP No. 100142 of 2016 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.S.C.Hiremath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Gurudev Gachinamath, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.410/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.50/2011 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4. Accused is the husband of Smt.Nanda @ Kavita W/o Kallanagouda Patil, is the respondent in the case. She filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) which was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591 CRL.RP No. 100142 of 2016 registered in P.C.No.26/2004 alleging the commission of offence under Section 498(A), 363 and 365 of the IPC. Private complaint was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, Police investigated the matter after registering the case and finally filed ‘B’ report. Thereafter, protest petition came to be filed 5. Learned trial Magistrate considering the sworn statement of the complainant and witnesses and oral documents, took cognizance and case was ordered to be registered as criminal case. 6. After due trial, accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 498(A) of the IPC and acquitted for the remaining offences and sentenced. 7. Being further aggrieved by same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.50/2011. 8. Learned Judge in the first Appellate Court sitting at Jamakhandi, dismissed the appeal on merits on reappriciation of the material evidence on record. Thereafter, the accused is before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591 CRL.RP No. 100142 of 2016 9. Sri.S.C.Hiremath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that Police after thorough investigation have filed ‘B’ report, but learned trial Magistrate took cognizance based on the sworn statement and other documents which has resulted in miscarriage of justice as there was no offence proved against the revision petitioner. 10. He would also contend that the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court mechanically upheld the order of conviction resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Alternatively, Sri.S.C.Hiremath, would contend that the parties are now separated by a decree of divorce and living separately. Taking note of the same, by enhancing the fine amount reasonably, sentence of one year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC, needs to be set aside by showing lenience and sought for allowing the petition to such extent. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591 CRL.RP No. 100142 of 2016 12. Per contra, Sri.Gurudev Gachinamath, representing the respondent-de facto complainant supports the impugned judgement. 13. He would further contend that merely on the ground that the investigation officer has filed ‘B’ report would not be sufficient to entertain the revision petition of the accused before this Court having regard to the limited revision jurisdiction. 14. More so, when complainant has been successful in establishing all ingredients which is cogent and convincing evidence on record attracting the offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 15. Insofar as alternative prayer is concerned, Sri.Gurudev Gachinamath would contend that the fact of divorce is not in dispute but harassment that has been caused to the revision petitioner when the marriage was subsisting cannot be lost sight and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591 CRL.RP No. 100142 of 2016 16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of material on record, it is crystal clear that revision petitioner is the husband of respondent. Admittedly, they are now separated by a decree of divorce. 17. Taking note of the oral testimony that has been placed on record coupled with other material evidence placed on record, learned trial Magistrate noticed that there was a physical and mental harassment caused by the revision petitioner to the respondent. Therefore, convicted the accused only for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC. 18. For the reasons best known to the complainant, she did not challenge acquittal of the accused for other offences. 19. In the case on hand, it is pertinent to note that initially ‘B’ report came to be filed based on the protest petition, learned trial Magistrate took cognizance only for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591 CRL.RP No. 100142 of 2016 Thereafter, on considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, rightly convicted the accused persons for the offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC. The said aspect of the matter reappreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while confirming the order of conviction and sentence. 20. Therefore, in view of limited revisional jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 21. This would take this Court to the next limb of the arguments of the revision petitioner which is the alternate submission made by Sri.S.C.Hiremath. 22. Taking note of the fact that the parties are now separated by decree of divorce and living separately. Son born in the wedlock, is now being rearing by the revision petitioner, enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to be payable in two instalment and setting - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591 CRL.RP No. 100142 of 2016 aside the imprisonment would better serve the ends of justice. 23. In view of the forgoing discussion, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court of simple imprisonment of one year is hereby set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to be payable in two equal installments on or before 30.04.2025 and 31.05.2025 respectively. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount of would automatically result in restoration of the order sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the first appellate Court. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591 CRL.RP No. 100142 of 2016 (iv) After the receipt of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, entire amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to respondent under due identification. (v) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 29