- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7816 CRL.RP No. 200163 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200163 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHIVU @ SHIVAKUMAR S/O SALI VENKATESH NAYAK, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O MADLAPUR, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584123 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, MANVI POLICE STATION, DIST. RAICHUR-584101. R/BY ADDL. S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 READ WITH SEC.442 OF BNSS(OLD), UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C(OLD) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05-11-2025 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.58/2024, BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7816 CRL.RP No. 200163 of 2025 SECTIONS 302, 341, 109, 114, 120-B, 504, 506(2), READ WITH SEC. 149 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned order of the learned Judge declining to discharge the present petitioner/accused No.6 in SC No.58/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 109, 114, 120B, 504, 506(2) read with 149 of IPC. 2. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and is arrayed as accused No.6. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he was a participant in the criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched by the other accused persons, which is stated to have taken place in the land belonging to accused No.5. On completion of investigation, the Investigating - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7816 CRL.RP No. 200163 of 2025 Agency has filed the charge sheet implicating the petitioner, and he is presently facing criminal prosecution for the said offences. 3. The petitioner filed an application seeking discharge under Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that even if the entire charge-sheet material is taken at its face value and accepted in toto, there are absolutely no incriminating circumstances or materials that would disclose his involvement in the alleged crime. The learned Sessions Judge, however, upon consideration of the charge-sheet papers, recorded a finding that there are prima facie materials indicating the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the criminal conspiracy along with the other accused. On that premise, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the discharge application, holding that the petitioner is required to face trial. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7816 CRL.RP No. 200163 of 2025 4. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended before this Court that there are no materials against the petitioner except the statements of C.Ws.12 and 17 recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is not persuaded to accept the said submission at this stage. The case on hand pertains to a heinous offence involving an allegation of murder. At the stage of considering an order passed on a discharge application, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination or re-appreciation of the entire charge-sheet material as if it were conducting a mini- trial. 5. When the learned Sessions Judge, upon perusal of the charge-sheet papers, has arrived at a conclusion that there exist prima facie materials to proceed against the petitioner, the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory or revisional - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7816 CRL.RP No. 200163 of 2025 jurisdiction is extremely limited. This Court cannot widen or expand the scope of judicial review by reassessing or weighing the probative value of the material on record, which is a matter squarely falling within the domain of the trial Court. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order rejecting the discharge application. The petition is therefore devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29 CT:SI