- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2590 CRL.RP No. 289 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 289 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SAHIL @ SHIVANANDA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/AT NO. 38, NAKAPURA POST HONNATTI RANEBENNUR (TALUK) HAVERI (DISTRICT) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MARUTHI G B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-01 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1.EXAMINE THE LEGALITY, PROPRIETY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.01.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA MADE IN S.C.NO.33/2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2590 CRL.RP No. 289 of 2018 ORAL ORDER 1. Accused no.1 n S.C.No.33 of 2016, pending before the court of II Additional District & Session Judge, Shivamogga is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 05.01.2018 passed in S.C.No.33 of 2016 by the Court of II Additional District & Session Judge, Shivamogga dismissing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, seeking his discharge. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein was charge sheeted for offences punishable under Section 304(B), 498(A) R/w Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.252 of 2013 along with accused no.3-Mosina, wife of Mansur by Thirthahalli Police Station, Shivamogga. After committal, the case was numbered in S.C.No.33 of 2016 on the files of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, in S.C.No.33 of 2016 with a prayer to discharge him from the case. The said application was opposed by the prosecution. The Trial Court, vide the impugned order has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2590 CRL.RP No. 289 of 2018 rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that allegation against accused nos.1 and 3 in charge sheet are similar. Accused no.3 has been discharged by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.479 of 2018 disposed of on 08.06.2018. Accused no. 2 is the husband of accused no.3 and he was dropped in the charge sheet. As on the date of deceased committing suicide, petitioner was in abroad. None of the witnesses have stated that demand was made by the petitioner for bringing dowry and in furtherance of such a demand deceased was ill-treated and therefore she had committed suicide. He submits that no allegation whatsoever is made against the petitioner in the death note left behind by the deceased. Trial Court has failed to appreciate these aspects of the matter and has erred in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C,. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2590 CRL.RP No. 289 of 2018 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the impugned order. He submits that there is a clear allegation against the petitioner which would attract the charge sheeted offences. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. FIR in Crime No.252 of 2013 was registered by Thirthahalli Police Station, Shimvamogga initially for offences punishable under Section 498(A) and 306 of IPC against the petitioner and two others. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed only against accused no.1 and 3 for offences punishable under Section 304(B), 498(A) R/W Section 34 of IPC. Allegation in the charge sheet is that deceased Yasmin Banu, who was a divorcee was married to the petitioner on 30.06.2013 in the presence of elders of both the family and for a period of two months from the date of marriage the couple lived together happily. Thereafter, accused no.1 / petitioner had left his wife in the house of accused no.3, who is the wife of accused no.2 and had gone abroad on employment. 7. It is alleged that accused no.3 used to speak to accused no.1 over phone frequently and she used to instigate accused no.1 to ask Yasmin Banu to bring dowry from her - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2590 CRL.RP No. 289 of 2018 house. It is also alleged that she was making unnecessary complaints against the deceased and accused no.1 used to call his wife Yasmin Banu over phone and advise her to listen to whatever accused no.3 is to say to her. On 11.10.2013, Yasmin Banu had committed suicide in the house of accused no.3 by hanging herself and allegedly had left behind a death note. 8. From a reading of the allegations found in the charge sheet, it is very clear that there is no allegation against the petitioner whatsoever with regard to any act of ill- treatment or harassment caused by him till he had left deceased in the house of accused no.3 and had gone abroad. Allegation in the charge sheet is that after the petitioner had gone abroad, accused no.3 in whose house the deceased was living used to call accused no.1 over phone and instigate him to demand dowry from the deceased. It is also alleged that accused no.3 was unnecessarily complaining against deceased Yasmin Banu and therefore accused no.1 had instructed deceased over phone to listen to whatever accused no.3 says to her. Except the aforesaid allegation there is no other allegation as against accused no.1. Charge sheet material would also go - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2590 CRL.RP No. 289 of 2018 to show that deceased was a divorcee and marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was performed on 30.06.2013 in the presence of the elders of both families. There is no allegation in the charge sheet that at the time of marriage there was any demand for dowry by the petitioner. 9. In the charge sheet it is mentioned that after marriage, petitioner and his wife Yasmin Banu lived together happily for a period of two months and thereafter petitioner had left his wife in the house of accused no.3 and had gone abroad for work. There is no allegation against the petitioner that when he stayed in India with his wife after marriage he had tortured or ill-treated her at any point of time or he had made any demand for dowry. The marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was performed on 30.06.2013 whereas the deceased had committed suicide on 11.10.2013. According to the prosecution, petitioner and his wife lived together happily after marriage for a period of about two months and thereafter petitioner had gone abroad for employment. 10. FIR in the present case was registered against the petitioner and two others. Accused no.2 - Mansur named in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2590 CRL.RP No. 289 of 2018 FIR is the husband of accused no.3 - Mohsina. First informant in the present case is the elder brother of deceased Yasmin Banu. After investigation, charge sheet is filed in the present case only as against accused nos.1 and 3 and accused no.2 is dropped in the charge sheet. Accused no.3 had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, in S.C.No.33 of 2016, which was dismissed and therefore she had approached this Court in Criminal Revision petition No.479 of 2018 which was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 08.06.2018. In paragraph nos.5 to 8 of the said order, it is observed as follows:- "5. On careful perusal of the statement of the witnesses and the death note, it is observed in the statement of one Mr. Ashrafulla who is none other than the brother of the deceased that, he has specifically stated that about 8 to 10 days prior to the death of his sister, his sister told him that the present petitioner was informing the accused No.1 that, the deceased was not properly conversing with the petitioner and she was always weeping in the house even at the time of praying to God (during Namaz) and therefore, the petitioner was informing accused No.1 that the said attitude of deceased was not congenial in her house. Therefore, she was requesting accused No.1 to advise his wife to properly behave in the house of the petitioner. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2590 CRL.RP No. 289 of 2018 Accordingly, accused No.1 was scolding his wife and he advised his wife to behave properly in the house of petitioner. Except that, the own brother of the deceased has not stated that at any point of time, his sister complained against the petitioner that she was demanding any money or ill-treating or harassing the deceased in any manner in demand of money. Likewise the other witness Rehana Baanu has stated in similar fashion. She also never stated that at any point of time deceased has informed her about demand for any money or ill-treatment or harassment. One Mr. Mohib Ulla, who is another brother of the deceased stated in similar fashion. One Sabeena Baanu is also another sister of the deceased, she also never made any allegation against the petitioner but she has reiterated the same statement as given by her sister and brother. One Smt. Ashraf Unnisa, another sister of the deceased also deposed in the same fashion. One Famida W/o Nazrulla who is a close relative of the deceased also stated in the same fashion. Aasiya Reshma Bhanu another witness, who is none other than the sister-in- law of the deceased also has given the statement in the same fashion, but however, she has stated in a very vague manner that the deceased was also demanding for money but for what reason she was demanding money is not at all stated. 6. One Smt. Bhagya who is the neighbor of the deceased also stated that – Mosina, i.e., the petitioner was demanding some money from the deceas ed but she also never stated in what context she was demanding - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2590 CRL.RP No. 289 of 2018 money, whether with reference to any dowry or any other demand has been stated. Therefore, these are all isolated sentences only available in the statement of Bhagya and Asiya Reshma Banu. Except these two witnesses, all the other witnesses who are very close relatives, brothers, sisters and sister-in-law of deceased have never stated anything with regard to demand for any money by the petitioner nor ill-treatment by her in demand of money or for any other reason. 7. Therefore, looking to the entire above facts and circumstances of the case, the entire charge sheet even it is translated into evidence, the overt act alleged against the petitioner is that she was only conversing with accused No.1 and making some complaint against the deceased and in turn, accused No.1 was scolding the deceased. The conversation which has been stated by some of the witnesses is only with regard to the behavior of the deceased in the house of the petitioner. 8. It is to be seen that the accused No.1 has left his wife i.e., the deceased in the house of this petitioner to take care of her. That might be the circumstance which prompted the deceased to commit suicide. In this context, the death note left by the deceased if taken into consideration, she never made any allegation particularly against this lady. She has never made any allegation against anybody. She has stated that she has committed suicide because she is frustrated in the life. The reason for frustration perhaps as stated in the statement of witnesses." - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2590 CRL.RP No. 289 of 2018 11. From the aforesaid it is apparent that none of the charge sheet witnesses have made any allegation against accused nos.1 and 3 about they demanding dowry from the deceased nor there is an allegation that in furtherance of such demand, deceased Yasmim Banu was ill-treated and therefore she had committed suicide. It is not in dispute that in the death note that is allegedly left behind by the deceased, she had not made any allegation either against accused no.1 or against accused no.3 about demand of dowry or harassment by them. She has only stated that she was frustrated and therefore, she was committing suicide and she alone was responsible for her death. The reason for the deceased to get frustrated has been stated in paragraph no.8 of the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.479 of 2018. 12. It is also relevant to note here that though charge sheet has been filed in the present case invoking offence punishable under Section 304(B) of IPC, the prosecution has not invoked any provision of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused. Undisputedly, the petitioner was abroad at the time of deceased committing suicide. For the purpose of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2590 CRL.RP No. 289 of 2018 invoking Section 304(B) of IPC there should be an allegation that immediately prior to the death, the deceased was harassed or treated cruelly by her husband or his relatives in furtherance of demand for dowry. No such material is found in the charge sheet. In the charge sheet, it is clearly mentioned that petitioner and his wife Yasmin Banu lived happily after marriage. Thereafter, he had left his wife Yasmin Banu in the house of accused no.3 and had gone abroad. Therefore, there is no material against the petitioner even to invoke the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court had erred in rejecting the discharge application of the petition filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C,. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 05.01.2018 passed in S.C.No.33 of 2016 by the Court of II Additional District & Session - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2590 CRL.RP No. 289 of 2018 Judge, Shivamogga is set aside and the petitioner is discharged of the charge sheeted offences in S.C.No.33 of 2016. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS