Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49783 (KAR)

MR ISHAN PRAVAN SAUL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

CRL.P/10001/2023 · 2026-02-05

S R Krishna Kumar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10001 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: MR ISHAN PRAVAN SAUL S/O PRANAV SAUL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO 103, P G BUILDING BTM LAYOUT 1ST STAGE BANGALORE 560 076 NATIVE OF WARD NO 6 DEHRA, GOPIPUR, KHAGA HIMACHAL PRADESH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HASMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. KARIAPPA.N.A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOTHANUR POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY – 560 077 (REP BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSCUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001). 2. SMT VANAJAMMA W/O NARYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO 28, 2ND CROSS THIMMGOWDA LAYOUT KOTHANUR POST BANGALORE – 560 077. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP, ALONG WITH SRI.M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1) Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.724/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XLV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE- A,B,C AND K AS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.28/2017 OF KOTHANUR POLICE, BENGALURU CITY. THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- [[ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CAV ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following relief:- “To quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.724/2017 pending on the file of Hon’ble XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, including the order dated: 13.09.2023 as per ANNEXURE-A,B,C and K as abuse of process of Law, for offence U/s 302 of IPC, which is arising out of Crime No.28/2017 of Kothanuru Police, Bangalore city, and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.” 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on the basis of a complaint lodged by Smt.Vanajamma, 2nd respondent – - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 de facto complainant at 2.30 a.m., on 02.02.2017, the 1st respondent – police registered an FIR in Crime No.28/2017 against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In pursuance of the said complaint, the police authorities conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet in S.C.No.724/2017 which is pending before the Sessions Court. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge on the ground that apart from the fact that the charge sheet material does not disclose or make out commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by the petitioner, the deceased Ms.Nakkayaki Florence stabbed the petitioner and caused multiple injuries to him, as a result of which, the petitioner reverted back and by way of self defence / private defence, stabbed the deceased in order to save his life, which is borne out from the charge sheet material on record and as such, the petitioner was entitled to be discharged from the case. The said application having been opposed by the 1st respondent – prosecution, the Sessions Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 13.09.2023, rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting his - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 discharge application and seeking quashing of the impugned proceedings before the Sessions Court, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.SPP for the respondent – State and perused the material on record. 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the fact that the charge sheet material did not make out or disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the said material indicated that the petitioner went with the deceased, who was a stranger to her residence for sexual relationship, he has no grouse against her nor any motive or intention to kill the deceased. It was contended that the petitioner was not armed with any weapon and the alleged murder weapon / kitchen knife belonged to the deceased, who assaulted the petitioner first and since he could not come out of the house of the deceased since the door was locked and the deceased having caused multiple injuries to the petitioner by assault with a knife on his vital parts and due to the confrontation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 between the petitioner and the deceased, petitioner developed strong apprehension that his life was in imminent danger and in that situation, if he had not exercised force by way of self defence, petitioner would have died. 4.1 It was also submitted that the charge sheet material also established that the petitioner has sustained equal number of injuries which had not been explained by the prosecution and at the earliest point in time, the petitioner had explained the entire incident not only before the police authorities but also before the Doctor, who treated his injuries. It was further submitted that the aforesaid aspects have not been considered by the Sessions Court which has dismissed the discharge application filed by the petitioner by improper and erroneous appreciation of the material on record and as such, the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court deserves to be set aside and the discharge application filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned proceedings. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) Sukumaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu - 2019(15) SCC 117; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 (ii) Sanjay Kumar Rai vs State of U.P - 2021 SCC Online SC 367; (iii) State of Orissa vs Debandra Nath Padhi- 2005(1) SCC 568; (iv) Century Spinning Manufacturing Co., vs. State of Maharashtra - 1972 (3) SCC 282; (v) Deo Narian vs. State of U.P - 1973(1) SCC 347; (vi) Murali @ Denny vs State of Rajasthan - 1995 Supp (1) SCC 39; (vii) Rayappa Asari vs. State of Tamil Nadu - 1972 Cri. L.J 1226; (viii) Kajal Sen vs State of Assam - 2002 (2) SCC 551; (ix) Mohammad Khan vs State of M.P - 1971 (3) SCC 683; (x) Randhir Singh vs. State of U.P - 2011 15 SCC 684; (xi) Bijan Kr. Mahajan vs. State of Assam - 2006 (4) Gau LT 318; (xii) Satbit vs. State of Haryana - 2018 (1) Cri C.C. 13; (xiii) Hasmat Ali vs. State of Assam - 2024 GAU- AS 4383; (xiv) Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab - 2010 (2) SCC 333; (xv) Md.Rizwan vs. State of Delhi - 1980 Supp SCC 215; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 (xvi) Pramod Kumar.N vs State of Karnataka – ILR 2024 KAR 4429; (xvii) Anju Jermi vs. State by Inspector of Police Mangadu Police Station, Chennai - 2012 Supreme (Mad) 3376; (xviii) Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another - 2010 (2) SCC 333; (xix) Munshi Ram and others vs Delhi Administration - AIR 1968 SC 702. 5. Per contra, learned Addl.SPP for the 1st respondent – State would support the impugned order and submit that the various contentions urged by the petitioner, especially the plea of private defence / self defence give rise to the disputed questions of fact which necessarily have to be decided only after a full fledged trial and not while considering an application for discharge which has been correctly rejected by the trial court. It was submitted that the charge sheet material clearly makes out and discloses the commission of the offence alleged against the petitioner and the issue / question as to whether the petitioner was guilty of murder / culpable homicide not amounting to murder or whether he stabbed the deceased by way of self defence / private defence can be ascertained only after completion of trial and the same would lie in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 the realm of appreciation of evidence and cannot be considered in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was therefore submitted that there was no merit in the petition and that the same was liable to be dismissed by placing reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) Sekar alias Raja Sekharan vs. State- Represented by Inspector of Police, (T.N) – (2002) 8 SCC 354; (ii) Ex.Ct.Mahadev vs. Director General Border Security Force and others – (2022) 8 SCC 502; (iii) Ratheeshkumar alias Babu vs. State of Kerala and Another – 2025 SCC OnLine SC 79; (iv) Umesh.K.M, vs. State of Karnataka- 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 14239. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that though the petitioner has urged various contentions in support of his claim, the Sessions Court has come to the correct and proper conclusion that the said contentions would necessarily have to be adjudicated upon only after a full fledged trial and not by way of a discharge application filed without even framing charge and proceeding to conduct trial. The Sessions court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 has also come to the correct conclusion that prima facie material is available on record to indicate that there was some altercation between the deceased and accused after having sex for money and the deceased died due to stabbing with a knife by the petitioner in the house of the deceased with the alleged murder weapon / kitchen wife being recovered outside the house in the compound as per the recovery mahazar and the rival contentions in this regard would have to be adjudicated upon only after a full fledged trial. Accordingly, the Sessions court came to the conclusion that in view of the allegations made in the charge sheet material comprising of the complaint, FIR, statement of witnesses, documents etc., prima facie material was present against the petitioner for the purpose of framing charge against him and proceeding for trial in the case by holding as under:- ORDER ON APPLICATIONS FILED U/S.227 and 228 OF CR.P.C.. The learned counsel for the accused has filed application U/S227 of cr.P.C. to discharge the accused from the alleged offence punishable U/s 302 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the application are as under- The complainant police have submitted charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/s 302 of IPC. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 The learned counsel for the accused has contended that on perusal of entire charge sheet it do not disclose commission of offence by the accused. The learned counsel for the accused to point out the materials from the charge sheet, which will support his stand of innocence at the time of oral arguments for discharge. Accordingly, prayed for allowing application filed U/s 227 of CrPC.. 3. The learned public prosecutor has filed objections to the application contending that the application filed on behalf of the accused is not maintainable in the eye of law. The learned Public Prosecutor has reiterated the allegations of the complaint and further denied the entire facts stated in the application and contended that during the course of investigation, the witnesses have given their statements before the police. The statements given by the witnesses before the 1.0., and the materials present in the charge sheet clearly attracts the ingredients of the U/s 302 of IPC The documents and statements recorded by the 1.0, clearly shows that there are sufficient material to frame charge against the accused. Accordingly, prayed for rejection of the application. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the entire prosecution papers. 5. The following points that arises for consideration of this court: 1. Whether the accused has made out sufficient grounds to discharge him from the offence punishable U/s.302 of IPC at this stage as prayed for? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 2. What order? 6. This Court has answered the above points are as under: Point No. 1:In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following- REASONS 7 Point No.1: In view of the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for accused and learned public prosecutor, this Court has verified the complaint and statements of the witnesses. The informant-Smt. Vanajamma lodged complaint against the accused before Kothanur P.S., on 2.2.2017 at 2.30 hours. On the basis of the complaint, the complainant Police have registered FIR vide in crime No.28/2017 for the offence punishable U/s.302 of IPC and after completion of the investigation, the complainant police submitted charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC.. 8. It is the case of the prosecution that on 2.2.2017 at 12.00 a.m. the accused had talk with African Citizen Nakayiki Florence who stands at Brigade Road, for physical intercourse, and settled the same for Rs.5,000/- and thereafter both came in THE CITY Cha to the deceased- Nakayiki Florence, at 12.40 hours house bearin No. 28, situated 2nd Cross, Thimmegowda Layout, within the limits of Kothanur P.S, Bangalore, and accused had sexual intercourse with the deceased and thereafter started quarrel in between them with regard to money, and they have assaulted each other, when the deceased demanded for more money, the accused brought a knife from her house, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 stabbed on her neck and chest and back at 37 times and thereby committed murder of the deceased and in view of sufficient material against accused, the present application for discharge of accused is not maintainable. In 1977 AIR 2018:1978 SCR(1) 257 (State of Bihar Vs.. Ramesh Singh) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "At the initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. [259E-F] The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of accused, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under s. 227 and 228 of the [259G] Strong suspicion against the accused, if it remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of trial. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. From the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India it is clear that when there are sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused for having committed an offence, the Court has to frame charge. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 9. The learned counsel for accused has vehemently argued that there is no evidence regarding commission of offence punishable U/s.302 of IPC by the accused. It is pertinent to note that there is clear and direct allegations that the accused after having sex with the deceased brought a knife and stabbed 37 times on her neck, chest and back, and killed her, the Court cannot discharge the accused without the trial of the case. The entire fact can be ascertained only after full fledged trial when there is serious allegations against accused. It is pertinent to note that the accused was arrested and produced before the trial Court on 02.02.2017, the learned Magistrate on examination of accused found injuries on the left palm of the accused and directed the jail authorities to provide treatment during custodial period. The learned counsel for the accused referred the first remand application submitted to the Magistrate as well as voluntary statement of the accused, wherein it is mentioned that on 1.2.2017 at 10.30 p.m. the accused along with the deceased went to place of occurrence for having sex. The accused had sex with the deceased twice the deceased insisted the accused to pay Rs. 10,000/- However, it was agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- to have sex with the deceased. When the accused refuse to pay Rs 10,000/- the deceased picked up quarrel with the accused and attempted to stab the accused with knife Therefore, counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the accused had no option but to attack on the deceased to defend himself. No offence has taken place as alleged by the prosecution, and the accused is entitle for - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 discharge. The accused applied for regular bail in Crl., Petition No.6031/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, a memo is filed by the learned counsel for the accused before the High Court of Karnataka stating that "the petitioner accused by name Ishan Pranav Soul submits that the version of CW.1 Smt. Vanajamma cited in the charge sheet in Crime No.28/2017 of Kothanur P.S., Bangalore is not disputed. Further he will undertake that he will not indulge in tampering this witness CW.1 or any other witness. He will undertake to appear before trial Court for completion of trial." Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl., Petition No.6031/2017 as per the order dated 11.08.2017 has observed that the petitioner accused is not disputing the statement of PW. 1 recorded U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C., In fact CW.1 statement recorded U/s.154 of Cr.P.C., i.e., information in cognizable cases to an officer in charge of a Police Station, same is reduced to writing and FIR has been forwarded to the learned Magistrate, wherein she suspected my co murder of the deceased in the place of occurrence. Statement of CW 1 is an admitted document by the accused. The learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that defence of the accused is that he has killed the deceased to protect himself. If the accused has got theory of self defence, it has to be contested and decided by the Court of law, when the charge sheet is filed against the accused for the alleged offence. Theory of the self defence is not the subject matter to be decided by the Court U/s. 227 of Cr.P.C. materials place before the Court is sufficient to frame charge - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 against the accused, accused is at liberty to take any defence he likes if so advised. 10. The learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the following decisions:- 1.(1971(3) Supreme Court Cases 683(Mohammed Khan and others Vs. State of madhya pradesh, and Nawab Khan and others Vs., State of Madhya Pradesh), 2. AIR 1973 Supreme Court 473(Deo narain V., State of UP), 3.AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2263(lakshmi Singh And others V. State of Bihar) 4.1972 CRI.L.J. 1226 madras High Court, 5.(2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 551(Kajal Sen and others Vs. State of Assam0, 6.(1979)3 Supreme Court Cases 4 and 7.2021 SCC OnLine SC 367(Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs., State of Uttar pradesh and another) The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused deals with right of private defence rests on the general CITY principle that where a crime is endeavoured to be committed by force it is lawful to repel that force in self defence. To say that a -person could only claim the right to use force after he had sustained a serious injury by an aggressive wrongful assault is a complete misunderstanding of law embodied in Sec 102 of IPC. The right of private defence is available for protection against apprehended unlawful aggression and not fo punishing the aggressor for the offence committed by him If after sustaining a serious injury there is no apprehension of further danger to the body, - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 then obviously the right of private defence would not be available Therefore, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger arises, the right of private of defence can be exercised. Again the nature of apprehension depends upon the use of the weapon has also the manner in which the weapon is used. The accused in this case also is at liberty take right of private defence at relevant stage. At this stage this Court based on the prosecution papers cannot come to conclusion that the accused has committed the alleged act by exercising right of private defence. 11. By analyzing the complaint and statements, it is found that full fledge trial is required so as to ascertain true facts of the case since the deceased- Nakayiki Florence died in a suspicious circumstances. In view of the same on the basis of these allegations and the material produced by the prosecution the point that has to be ascertain is whether those allegations attracts Sec. 302 of IPC has to be verified only after full fledged trial. 12. Before going for further discussion it is necessary to _note the ingredients of Sec. U/s 302 of IPC as under:- Sec.302 of IPC whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall be liable to fine 299-Culpable Homicide-whoever caused death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commit the offence of culpable homicide. Illustrations-(a)(b)and (c), Explanations. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 300-Murder- Except in the cases wherein after excepted, culpable homicide is murder. If the at by which the death is caused is with the intention of causing death, or - Secondly If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as he offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or - Thirdly - If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient o in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or - Fourthly - If the person committing the act knows that it is imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without many excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Ilustrations (a)(b)(c) and (d), Explanations. After referring the ingredients of the above said mahazar, inquest report and also the statements of witnesses provisions and on going through the complaint, charge sheet, as shown in the charge sheet clearly reveals and supports that Nakayiki Florence has been murdered by the accused there is a prima facie materials to believe that deceased after having sex with her. 13. The ingredients of Sec.227 of Cr.P.C. applies only if there is no material evidence or prima facie material present against the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijayan Vs., State of Kerala and another (2010 SCC 398 SC. 1979 3 SCC P.4= AIR 1979 SCP.366) and in the case of - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 Union of India Vs., Prafulla Kumar Samal and another formulated the following 7 guiding principles. 1. The judge while considering the question of framing the charges U/s.227 C.P.C., has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. To determine prima facie would depend upon the facts of each case. 2. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. 3. The court can not act merely as a post office or a mouth piece of the prosecution but it has to consider the broad probabilities of the case. There cannot be a roving enquiry in to the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if a trial was being conducted. 4.On the basis of material on record if the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame the charge. 5.At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record can not be gone into but before framing of charge the Court must apply it's judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission by the accused was possible. 6. At the state of Sec.227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence but the court cannot be - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 expected to presume that the prosecution story is gospel truth. 7.If two view are possible and one of then gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial judge will be empowered to discharge the accused irrespective of the result of the trial. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2019 SCC P.734) State of Karnataka Lokyuktha M. R. Hiremath has held that 'while considering the application for discharge the Court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence.’ The ratio laid down in the above referred decisions strictly applied to the case on hand in order to grant of relief of discharge to the accused. In the instant case if the complaint and other prosecution papers is carefully analyzed, prima facie the deceased and accused after having sex for money, and it is found that there appears to be some altercation between killed deceased by the accused by stabbing with knife. There are sufficient materials to frame charge against the accused As such decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the accused has no direct bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14.In view of the allegations made in the statements of witnesses, and complaint, clearly establishes that there - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 are prima facie materials present against accused to proceed to frame charge. Hence, for the reasons and discussions made above the application filed by the accused is not maintainable in the eye of law and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative. 15. Point No.2: In view of answer on point No.1, this court pass the following: ORDER The application filed by the accused U/s.227 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.” 8. As rightly held by the Sessions court, having regard to the specific plea put forth by the petitioner that he had stabbed the deceased by way of self defence / private defence which is a disputed question of fact coupled with the charge sheet material alleging offence of murder against the petitioner, who disputes it which also gives rise a disputed question of fact, the instant case would clearly require adjudication only after a full fledged trial and the question of discharging the petitioner at this stage would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 9. It is well settled that complicated, serious and disputed questions of law and fact requiring oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by the parties is incapable of being adjudicated upon by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14591 CRL.P No. 10001 of 2023 Cr.P.C. or Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Sessions Court was fully justified in rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioner by passing the impugned order which does not suffer any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. It is however made clear that all rival contentions between the parties on all aspects of the matter are kept open to be decided by the Sessions Court after trial and no opinion is expressed on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.