- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48917 CRL.P No. 1550 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1550 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /528(BNSS) BETWEEN: M. N. VENKATESH S/O LATE M.C. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT #773/6, F-1, 7TH CROSS, RAMANUJA ROAD, FORT MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 004 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. N. MANMOHAN, ADV. FOR SRI. VINAY N., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF V.V. PURAM POLICE STATION, MYSURU – 570 002. REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE – 01. 2. RAGHU M.D. S/O LATE M.P. DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT #202, BALAJI RAYAL APARTMENT, BASAVARAJU CIRCLE, VIJAYANAGARA 3RD STAGE, MYSURU – 570 017. ALSO AT OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR COMPLEX, PAMPAPATHI ROAD, SARSAWATHIPURAM, NEAR CHAMARAJAPURAM RAILWAY STAION, MYSURU – 570 009. ALSO AT # 459, 13TH MAIN, MS RAMAIAH ROYAL CITY, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48917 CRL.P No. 1550 of 2025 MADAGALLI, VIJAYANAGAR 4TH STAGE, MYSURU CITY – 570 017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NATARAJ BABA K., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2024 PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.208 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -K) AND THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2024 PASSED IN C.C.NO.352/2024 PASS BY THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (III COURT) AT MYSURU (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -H) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE DISCHARGE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -F) THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- (i) Set aside the order dated 04.12.2024 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.208/2024 passed by the IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, (produced as Annexure-‘K’) and the order dated 15.04.2024 passed in C.C.No.352/2024 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (III Court) at Mysuru (produced as Annexure’H’) and consequently, dismiss the discharge application filed by the Respondent No.2 (produced as Annexure’F’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48917 CRL.P No. 1550 of 2025 (ii) Pass such other and further orders as deemed fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for 1st respondent as well as learned counsel for 2nd respondent and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record indicates that on 27.07.2023, the petitioner filed a complaint interalia alleging that when his son was riding a Ola Electric scooter inside the college campus, the 2nd respondent’s son i.e., Adarsh R., who was aged about 14 years drove Maruthi Swift Car bearing Reg.No.KA-42 N-0609 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident of the petitioner’s son, who sustained grievous injuries, resulting in permanent disability including loss of 100% hearing capacity in his left ear, thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC r/w Sections 184.,199-A, 4(1),181, 5(1) and 180 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said complaint was registered as an FIR in Crime No.162/2023, pursuant to which, investigation was conducted and a criminal case in C.C.No.352/2024 was filed against the 2nd respondent which is pending adjudication before the learned Magistrate. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48917 CRL.P No. 1550 of 2025 4. The 2nd respondent filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge which was allowed by the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 15.04.2023, thereby discharging the 2nd respondent from the proceedings. The said order of the Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.208/2024 which was also dismissed by the Sessions Court vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2024. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned orders will indicate that the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the prosecution papers show material against the 2nd respondent – accused in relation to the incident in question. Despite having come to the said conclusion, the learned Magistrate committed an error in holding that the 2nd respondent was entitled to be discharged from the proceedings as sought for by him. Further, even without discussing, considering or appreciating the statement of witnesses and documents which formed part and parcel of the charge sheet material, the learned Magistrate also fell in error in conducting a mini trial; while passing the impugned order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48917 CRL.P No. 1550 of 2025 without appreciating that the legality, validity and veracity of the said material would necessarily have to be scrutinized during trial and not at the stage of considering a discharge application. The learned Magistrate also erred in placing reliance upon the documents produced by the accused, which is also impermissible in law and the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate discharging the accused deserves to be quashed. 6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court will indicate that the revision petition filed by the petitioner – complainant has been summarily and mechanically dismissed without reference to or considering the material on record; in fact, the sole reason assigned by the Sessions Court while passing the impugned order is by placing reliance upon the exoneration of the accused by the Juvenile Justice Board, which had purportedly discharged the accused from the proceedings. In this context, the Sessions Court failed to consider and appreciate that even assuming the Juvenile Justice Board had discharged the accused for an offence punishable under Section 199-A of IMV Act, the accused could not have been discharged for the other offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC as well as Sections - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48917 CRL.P No. 1550 of 2025 5(1) r/w Section 180 of the IMV Act and consequently, the said findings recorded by the Sessions Court deserve to be set aside. 7. 7. Upon reconsideration, re-evaluation and re-appreciation of the entire material on record , I am of the considered opinion that both the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Court completely misdirected itself in discharging the 2nd respondent – accused by recording findings which are based on surmises and conjectures and are contrary to law and facts warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 8. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 15.04.2024 passed in C.C.No. 352/2024 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (III Court) at Mysuru, allowing the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside. (iii) So also, the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, dismissing the Criminal Revision petition No.208/2024 filed by the petitioner is hereby set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48917 CRL.P No. 1550 of 2025 (iv) Consequently, the application filed by accused - respondent No.2 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected and the learned Magistrate is directed to frame charges against the accused and proceed further in accordance with law. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of all parties to put forth all their contentions and adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their claims before the learned Magistrate. (vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE TSN/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1