- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1449 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1450 OF 2018 IN CRL.RP NO.1449/2018: BETWEEN: 1. DR. SIDDALINGASWAMY M. KAMBALI HIREMATH S/O MRUTHUNJAYASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS DOCTOR BY PROFESSION R/O MARANABASARA VILLAGE RON TALUK GADAG DISTRICT-582 101. NOW R/O BENGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY N., AMICUS CURIAE) AND: 1. STATE BY TOWN POLICE CHITRADURGA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE BOTH COURTS JUDGMENT AND CONVICTIONS DATED 17.11.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.38/2016 OF THE I APPELLATE COURT, SPECIAL II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHTIRADURGA AND JUDGMENT DATED 15.04.2016 IN C.C.NO.1901/2009 OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA AND PRAYS FOR ALLOW APPEAL CRL.A.NO.38/2016 AND DISMISS C.C.NO.1901/2009 AND ACQUIT PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 341, 384, 504 OF IPC. IN CRL.RP NO.1450/2018: BETWEEN: 1. DR. SIDDALINGASWAMY M. KAMBALI HIREMATH S/O MRUTHUNJAYASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS DOCTOR BY PROFESSION R/O MARANABASARA VILLAGE RONA TALUK GADAG DISTRICT-582 102. NOW R/O. BENGALURU. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY N., AMICUS CURIAE) AND: 1. STATE BY KOTE POLICE CHITRADURGA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.692/2007 DATED 15.04.2016 ON THE - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.37/2016 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHTIRADURGA, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER These two revision petitions are filed by the revision petitioner questioning the conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 384, 504 of the IPC in Criminal Revision Petition No.1449/2018 and so also the offence punishable under Section 498A 504, 506 of IPC in Criminal Revision Petition No.1450/2018, wherein he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, but convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution in C.C.No.1901/2009 while invoking the offence under Section 341 of IPC are that on 31.10.2009 morning at 07.50 a.m., when C.W.1 was going in her Scooty Pep - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16-I-7402, in B.D.Road, near railway gate, the accused came there and wrongfully restrained the Scooty of C.W.1 and caused threat to the life of C.W.1 by saying that if she fails to withdraw the case filed against him for the offence punishable under Section 498A. Further, the accused also took the Scooty belongs to C.W.1 forcibly without her permission and hence involved in the offence punishable under Sections 341, 506 and 384 of IPC. The police have registered the case in Crime No.145/2009 for the above said offences and conducted the investigation and thereafter filed charge sheet and accused was secured. He did not plead guilty and claims the trial. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P9 and one material object, i.e., Scooty Pep and accused was subjected to recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The trial Court - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 having considered the evidence of P.W.1 particularly i.e. who was wrongfully restrain the vehicle of C.W.1 and also took the Scooty and mainly based upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2/father who corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 regarding wrongful restrainment and taking the Scooty and also P.W.6 who had seized the vehicle of C.W.1., which is marked as M.O.1 and having taken note of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 341, 384 and 504 IPC. The said order was challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.38/2016. 4. Criminal Revision Petition No.1450/2018 is filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.692/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC wherein one year sentence is imposed against the accused. 5. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution in C.C.No.692/2007 before the trial Court are that in - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 between 03.08.2005 to 25.03.2006, the accused came to the house of C.W.2 situated at Sadanandaiah Extension, Chitradurga town and picked up quarrel with C.W.1 with respect to salary of C.W.1 and divorce matter and abused her in filthy language. Further, the accused assaulted over the body of C.W.1 with hands and the accused has also caused threat to the life of C.W.1. Further, the accused also abused the C.W.1 over phone and tortured her both physically and mentally and he also caused life threat to her over phone. Therefore, the accused has committed offence punishable under sections 498A, 504 and 506 of IPC. The police have registered the case in Crime No.79/2009 for the above said offences and conducted the investigation and thereafter filed charge sheet and accused was secured. He did not plead guilty and claims the trial. 6. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P5. On the other hand, - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 accused was subjected to recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The said order was challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.37/2016. 7. The appellate Court also reassessed both oral and documentary evidence on record confirms the judgment of the trial Court in both the cases. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court in these revision petitions. 8. The counsel appearing for revision petitioner in in Criminal Revision Petition No.1449/2018 would vehemently contend that the trial Court committed an error in considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also the evidence of P.W.6 and has blindly believed the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 evidence of witnesses and accepted the case of complainant. Further, the trial Court has not considered the evidence of other hostile witnesses and ignored the evidence of circumstances of the case. The appellate Court also committed an error in accepting the reasoning of the trial Court in coming to the conclusion that no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court in spite of the prosecution failed to prove the case of complainant. 9. In Criminal Revision Petition No.1450/2018, learned amicus curiae in his argument would vehemently contend that the trial Court fails to take note of the fact that complaint was lodged belatedly in 2006 and it is narrated that incident was taken place subjecting her for cruelty in the year 2005 and there is a long gap attributing the allegation of incident as well as lodging of the complaint only with an intention to falsely implicate the accused, false complaint is lodged and hence, Ex.P1- complaint is devoid of merits and the same is also not - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 taken note of by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. 10. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent/State in Criminal Revision Petition No.1449/2018 would vehemently contend that the specific case of complainant that on 31.10.2009 when she was proceeding in her vehicle, he wrongfully restrained the scooty of P.W.1 and caused threat to the life of P.W.1 to withdraw the case filed against him under Section 498A and also he took the scooty. The same was seized at the instance of accused and mahazar was drawn as per seizure in the presence of witnesses and the trial Court took note of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the evidence of P.W.6 who seized the vehicle that is M.O.1 at the instance of accused. 11. Further, learned HCGP in Criminal Revision Petition No.1450/2018 would vehemently contend that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, particularly the document of - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 Ex.P1-complaint and other witnesses have clearly deposed before the Court with regard to harassment meted out to the complainant and when she was not able to tolerate the same, she lodged the complaint. Further, when the complainant was pursuing her further studies, the accused had visited the college and troubled her. The trial Court also extracted the evidence of witnesses, particularly in paragraph Nos.23, 24 and 25 that accused has harassed her by demanding dowry and also continuously harassing her even after divorce and even the accused threatened her life. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the parents of the complainant and they deposed about the ill-treatment and harassment given by the accused to the complainant and the trial Court considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 as well as other witnesses has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and therefore, it does not requires any interference of this Court. 12. Having heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also learned HCGP appearing for - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 the respondent/State, the following points would arise for my consideration: a. Whether the trial Court and the appellate Court committed an error in accepting the case of prosecution in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 341, 384, 504 of Indian Penal Code? b. Whether the order of both the Courts suffer from its legality and correctness? c. Whether both the Courts have committed an error in accepting the case of prosecution? d. Whether conviction for the offence under Section 498A suffers from its legality and correctness? e. Whether this Court can exercise the revisional powers? f. What order? 13. Having considered the material on record in respect of Criminal Revision Petition No.1449/2018 arisen out of C.C No.1901/2009, wherein specific allegation is made against the revision petitioner that on 31.10.2009 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 morning at 07.50 a.m., when P.W.1 was proceeding in the Scooty vehicle, the accused wrongfully restrained the Scooty of P.W.1 and caused threat to the life of P.W.1 to withdraw the case which is filed against him for the offence punishable under Section 498A and also took the Scooty. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1, who is deposed before the Court. Though P.W.1 was cross examined in length with regard to wrongfully restraining the complainant and also taking her Scooty from her custody, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, except elaborate cross examination is made with regard to filing of case against him for the offence punishable under Section 498A and also filing of the petition for judicial separation. Further, with regard to evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during her cross examination, for not wrongfully restraining her and taking of her scooty . Even from the evidence of P.W.2 who is the father of the victim also supports the case that when the accused was - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 wrongfully restrained and took the Scooty, the same was informed to him by her daughter i.e., P.W.1 and he only asked her to come in autorikshaw and she came back to the house in autorikshaw. 14. It is relevant to note that the evidence of P.W.6 is very clear that the vehicle was seized at the instance of the accused and the trial Court took note of evidence of PWs.1, 2, and 6 while invoking Sections 341, 384 and 506 of IPC, the very specific case of complainant that causing of life threat to her by accused to withdraw the case. To this effect, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and comes to the conclusion that such threat was made to P.W.1. and accepted the case of prosecution. Hence, there is no material before the Court with regard to the effective cross examination. As such, the trial Court and the appellate Court not committed an error in appreciating the evidence available on record particularly with regard to causing of threat as well as wrongfully restraining her and taking of vehicle and the same was also seized at the - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 instance of accused which was taken without the permission of P.W.1, hence I do not find any error on the part of trial Court in appreciating the evidence and the same not suffers from its legality and correctness. Therefore, the question of entertaining the revision petitions does not arise and I answer point No.1 in negative. 15. In respect of Criminal Revision Petition No.1450/2018 is concerned, specifically in Ex.P1- complaint, allegation is made against the accused that marriage was taken place in 2004 i.e. on 02.05.2004 and in the said wedlock they have a child. But specific allegations are made that when she was working at Siddaganga Engineering Institute of Technology as lecturer, he used to insist her to pay the entire salary to him and also subjected her for mental torture and when her sister came to her house, in front of her only, he made galata with regard to her salary and also assaulted in front of her. On 18.01.2005 in the night also the accused - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 quarreled with her and abused in a filthy language and snatched her mangala sutra and he left the house. Immediately, she rushed back to her parent's house and on 03.08.2005 when she was proceeding to college where she was working as lecturer, the accused used to repeatedly visiting the college and making phone call and causing life threat and he used to contact her colleague. The accused also suspecting her fidelity and also making phone call to her employers to tell about her character. In spite of case is filed for judicial separation which is pending before the Court, the accused is causing trouble and harassing the complainant. Hence, based on this complaint which was given on 13.06.2006, the case was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of IPC. 16. The trial Court having taken note of the evidence of P.W.1 and during the cross examination of P.W.1 also, detailed cross examination was made with regard to the particular incident is concerned, the same is - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 not denied and she categorically stated that she studied at JMIT College since 1998 to 2000 and when suggestion was made that at the time of marriage itself there was quarrel with the accused and her father and the same was categorically denied. It is also pertinent to note that with regard to the fact that there was a galata between her and him in the presence of her sister, a suggestion was made that no such incident was taken place and the same was denied. Except the suggestion, nothing is elicited with regard to the incident that has taken place, the presence of her sister and also snatching of her mangalasutra and leaving her alone in the house. Apart from that evidence of P.W.2 i.e., who is the father of complainant also deposes before the Court with regard to the harassment and cruelty meted out to his daughter by the accused and the he was subjected to cross examination in length and nothing is elicited. All the suggestions which were made to P.W.2 are also denied. The trial Court having taken note of the evidence available on record, particularly the - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and also other witnesses, comes to the conclusion with regard to subjecting her for cruelty, there is material to prove the same. But in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, there is no material since there was no such abusing the complainant in filthy language and also the life threat made to her. But the fact remains that case was registered for the harassment and cruelty was taken note of and the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is consistent with regard to the cruelty meted out to her and even the accused did not stop the cruelty even when she had joined and working as lecturer. He continued to harass her and the same is extracted in paragraph No.17 of the judgment of the trial Court by the appellate Court while re-appreciating the same. Nothing is found in the cross examination of P.W.1 and also the main witness evidence of PWs.1 to 3. Though PWs.2 and 3 are the interested witnesses, the same corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1. The trial Court in paragraph Nos.24 and 25 taken note of the - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 evidence which was given by P.W.1 and the appellate Court also reassessed the evidence available on record particularly with regard to the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and not found any shortfall in appreciation of evidence. When such reasoning is given and though counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that there is a delay in lodging the complaint, but the fact is that when the incident was taken place in the year 2005, the complainant did not lodge any complaint and when harassment was continued even when she was working in different college, ultimately, she lodged the complaint on 13.06.2006 and no doubt there was delay in lodging the complaint but in a matrimonial dispute, no one rush to the police station immediately but try to save the marriage. But in the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1 specifically stated the dates on which she was assaulted in front of her sister and also subsequently about snatching of mangalasutra and he left the house was also specifically deposed by the complainant in terms of the complaint - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 averments and when such materials are considered by both the trial Court and the appellate Court, the judgments passed by both the Courts do not suffer from its legality and correctness and question of entertaining these revision petitions do not arise. The scope of revision is very limited and if the evidence available on record is not considered while passing such an order and if any miscarriage of justice, then only this Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction. Hence, I answered remaining points in negative. 17. In view of the discussion made above, I passed the following: ORDER a. Both the revision petitions are dismissed. b. This Court appreciated the assistance given by the Amicus Curiae for disposal of these revision petitions. - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010291892018 NC: 2026:KHC:38889 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1450 of 2018 c. When this Court is about to pass the order with regard to Amicus Curiae fee, the counsel makes submission that no need to pass any order with regard to the same. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48