- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49414 CRL.RP No. 1515 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1515 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI.RUPENDRA S/O BASAVARAJU M AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. SRI BASAVARAJU M S/O MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 3. SMT PADMAVATHI W/O BASAVARAJU M AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SRI SHIVAPRASAD S/O BASAVARAJU M AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 5. SRI SUMAN S/O BASAVARAJU M AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 6. SRI OMKARSWAMY S/O BASAVARAJU M AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O MARANAPURA VILLAGE, TALKAD HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 122. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ABHILASH KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI NANJUNDA GOWDA M R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49414 CRL.RP No. 1515 of 2022 AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TALKADU POLICE MYSURU DISTRICT REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FPR R1; SRI GAGAN GANAPATHY M.B., ADVOCTE FOR R2) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER PASSED ON 02.11.2022 IN SPL.C.NO.263/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354(A), 504, 506, 323 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 7 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, MYSURU AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 227 OF CR.P.C. AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 02.11.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Mysuru, in Spl.C.no.263/2022, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Amaresh, learned counsel appearing for Sri MR Nanjunda Gowda, advocate for petitioners submitted, revision petition was by accused no.1 to 3, 5, 6 and 8. It was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49414 CRL.RP No. 1515 of 2022 submitted, on a complaint filed on 12.09.2021 alleging that victim belonging to 'Scheduled Tribe' community, was residing with her parents and accused no.1 belonging to same category had since six years in love with victim and took her to various places even prior to her attaining age of majority and by assuring to marry her, kissed her and touched her body and threatened her to kill if she does not co-operate. On 20.02.2020, he had taken her behind Mudukutore Hillock and forced her for sexual intercourse and threatened her against disclosing same to anyone else. On 06.07.2021, when she was on her way for corona vaccination, he slapped her and snatched her mobile and threatened her if she does not co-operate, he would publicize her photographs and videos. Thereafter her parents sought intervention of Prabhulinga Swamy, accused returned her mobile phone. But, she found that photographs and videos were deleted. On confronting accused, she was abused by his family members and was assaulted etc. Based on said complaint, Crime no.85/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 354A, 504, 506, 323, 149 of IPC was registered. And after investigation, prosecution filed chargesheet. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49414 CRL.RP No. 1515 of 2022 3. It was submitted, though there was no allegation or complaint about offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act' for short), referring to alleged incidents which took place six years ago, said provisions were also invoked against accused in apparent abuse of process of law. Therefore, petitioners filed application for discharge. Though contentions substantiated petitioners' case for discharge, trial Court under impugned order without proper consideration, rejected same leading to this revision petition. It was submitted, there was no proper consideration of facts and circumstances and contentions urged. Therefore, impugned order called for interference. 4. Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned HCGP for respondent no.1 and Sri Gagan Ganapathy, learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed revision petition. It was submitted, trial Court had arriving on conclusion that there was prima facie material against accused, rejected application and same did not call for interference. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49414 CRL.RP No. 1515 of 2022 5. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order and record. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 9 SCC 577 and Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2024 INSC 1012, has held that while considering application for discharge, trial Court would be required to examine whether contents of charge sheet and prosecution material indicate prima facie case and if so to reject application for discharge; and only in case prosecution material did not establish commission of offence by accused, application for discharge could be entertained. It is also held that trial Court cannot act as post office for prosecution and there has to be application of mind by sifting through material and discussion of material, though not in nature of mini trial, while considering application for discharge. 7. In instant case, trial Court has after referring to provisions under which application is filed, in all but one sentence concluded that there is prima facie material and matter would require trial. Said conclusion arrived without discussion of prosecution material would not meet - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49414 CRL.RP No. 1515 of 2022 requirements of law. Hence, without any more, order would warrant interference. 8. Thus, Revision petition is allowed; impugned order dated 02.11.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Mysuru, in Spl.C.no.263/2022 is set-aside on ground of failure to assign proper reasons, as per decisions in Kanchan Kumar and Karan Talwar (supra), matter is therefore, remitted back to Special Court for consideration of application afresh, in light of ratio in above decisions. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35