- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1359 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MEVINDI VEERESHA ALIAS ERANNA A ALUR, S/O ANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEAS, R/AT NEAR NAGAPPA TEMPLE, MEUNDI VILLAGE - 582 113, TALUK MUNDARGI, DISTRICT GADAG. …PETITIONER [BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. BANNUR, ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1 . STATE BY HARIHAR TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SMT. GEETHA A HIREMATH, W/O ASHOKA HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT J C BADAVANE, 4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, HARIHARA, HOUSE NO.59, 3469, MUNDARAGI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 BELLADA ONI, NEAR POST OFFICE, TALUK MUNDARAGI, DISTRICT GADAG - 582 118. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1 (PH); NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED] THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05/09/2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-I, DAVANAGERE IN THE SPL. CASE NO. 714/2023 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C. B) ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C. IN SPL. CASE NO.714/2023 BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-I, DAVANAGERE. THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.11.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 CAV ORDER Challenging order dated 05.09.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I, Davanagere, in Spl.C.no.714/2023, rejecting application for discharge, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Basavaraj R., learned counsel for petitioner (accused no.2 and referred to as ‘petitioner’) submitted, case of prosecution was based on a complaint dated 11.08.2023 filed by respondent no.2 (‘complainant’) stating that one Vasudev Hiremath (accused no.1 and ‘VH’, for short) sexually assaulted her minor daughter on 13.06.2020, 20.06.2022 etc. and again on 11.08.2023 after kidnapping her from Harihar KSRTC Bus Stand in his Scorpio Car with petitioner accompanying him. Complaint was registered as Crime no.146/2023 by Harihara City Police on 11.08.2023 for offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 (2) (N) and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short) read with Sections 4 and 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (‘POCSO’, for short). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 3. It was submitted, without proper investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 03.10.2023, wherein offences alleged against petitioner were under Sections 363, 506 and 114 of IPC read with Section 17 of POCSO. It was submitted, in complaint only overt-act against petitioner was about driving Scorpio Car when VH kidnapped victim on 11.08.2023. It was submitted, prosecution case was riddled with material contradictions. Besides, there was unexplained delay of 3½ years in filing complaint, which was fatal. In addition, victim’s sister had filed separate complaint before Gangavati Police Station on 14.01.2024 on similar allegation of sexual assault committed on 01.10.2021 in Car, wherein petitioner was named as occupant. Likewise, another complaint was filed by complainant before Mundargi Police Station on 03.01.2023 alleging that she was threatened. It was submitted, filing of complaints at three different Police Stations at three different places after three years was only to harass petitioner by false implication. 4. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Ali v. State of U.P., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 272, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 had held, when victim had informed her mother about incident and complaint was filed belatedly, conviction could not sustain. 5. It was submitted, after marriage of victim fixed with VH there was straining of relationship between their families, leading to filing of false complaint and petitioner being victimised. It was submitted, in complaint, complainant stated that on 13.06.2020, victim disclosed about VH taking her to Gadag, committing rape on her in lodge before dropping her home. Thus complainant had knowledge of incident of 13.06.2020 on same day. She however stated that in year 2021, without disclosing reason when victim consumed sleeping tablets in her grandmother’s house, VH along with family members forcibly fixed marriage of VH with victim and alleged that thereafter until 20.06.2022, VH indulged in forcible sexual intercourse with victim repeatedly under threat of life. It was claimed that they later sold their house and shifted to Harihar, where incident of 11.08.2023 occurred. This would reveal that complaint filed on 11.08.2023 was more than three years three months later. Complaint also disclosed, straining of relationship - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 between family of victim and VH not only due to financial transactions with VH, but also forced marriage alliance. 6. It was submitted, in her statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC on 13.08.2023, complainant stated that VH took victim in his Car to Gadag for admission to college. And few days later victim consumed sleeping pills without disclosing reason. It was claimed, only after enquiry on finding her dull, victim revealed about incident of rape on 13.06.2020, VH claiming to have recorded same and threatening her against disclosure. Complainant further stated that on realizing same, VH came with his family members and forcibly performed engagement ceremony with victim. Thereafter, VH, his parents and brother threatened to kill victim if she did not sleep with VH whenever he wanted and on said threat VH had forcible sexual intercourse with victim, 15 to 20 times. It was submitted, said statements would if not contradict earlier assertions would show marked improvisation against main accused – VH, but against petitioner, no overt-acts alleged. 7. Further, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, even victim merely stated that on 13.06.2020, VH - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 stating that he would get her admission in college at Gadag with help of his friend took her to a lodge in Gadag and while waiting for arrival of his friend gave her juice after drinking which she fell unconscious. And after she woke up, he raped her and recorded same on his mobile phone and threatening to release video on social media if she revealed it to anyone. She stated even parents, brother and sister of VH threatened to kill her if she did not sleep with VH whenever he wanted and on said threat, he raped her 15 to 20 times and also made videos of same. She added that VH and his family members forced her to do their household chores and caused pain by pressing her neck, which were improvements. 8. It was submitted, insofar as alleged incident of 11.08.2023, in complaint, complainant stated that VH came with petitioner in Scorpio Car and near Keerti Hotel, KSRTC Bus Stand, Harihar and VH kidnapped victim with intention to have forcible sexual intercourse. But, in her statement recorded on 13.08.2023, she made no reference to petitioner. Likewise, in statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC on 11.08.2023, victim alleged that she was threatened by VH near Keerti Hotel - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 to come into Car and when on outskirts of town, asked petitioner who was driving Car to get down and thereafter, VH assaulted her sexually. On her protest, VH called petitioner back and asked him to drive Car to Davangere, but after taking her to SS Hospital, Davangere, to visit someone, she was dropped at Harihar Bus stand. In her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, she stated that VH along with his friend came near Keerti Hotel, Harihar, in Scorpio Car and forcibly took victim in it outside town and sexually assaulted her and when she protested against intention of VH to take to lodge in Davangere, VH and petitioner took to SS Hospital, Davangere, brought back and pushed out of Car near Harihar Bus Stand, after pressing her neck and telling her that she would be taken for marriage. 9. It was submitted, entire prosecution case depended on these allegations which were mainly against VH and his family members, with only overt-act against petitioner driving Scorpio Car. It was submitted, allegation of petitioner assisting VH and later joining him in threatening victim were clear improvements, without corroborating material. Therefore, there - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 was not even any prima-facie material against petitioner and therefore, there would be no need to subject petitioner to trial. Hence, petitioner filed application for discharge under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’, for short) on 09.08.2024. It was submitted, at time of framing charges as well as on filing of application for discharge, duty was cast on trial Judge, to sift entire prosecution material, whether it discloses prima-facie case against petitioner. It was submitted, material would indicate abject failure. Even while considering application for discharge, similar duty was cast on trial Court, but, it dismissed application without consideration. Hence, prayed for allowing revision petition. 10. On other hand, Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent no.1 – State opposed petition. It was submitted, there were clear averments against petitioner that he was driving Scorpio Car and supported VH in commission of offences. Though, petitioner was asked to get down after victim entered Car, it was also mentioned that VH had called petitioner back and that petitioner had driven Car to SS Hospital and back to Harihar Bus Stand. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 11. It was submitted, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, victim stated that VH came near Keerthi Hotel in Scorpio Car driven by petitioner, forcibly took victim to outskirts of town where he assaulted her sexually. Same would justified charges under Sections 363, 506 and 114 of IPC and Section 17 of POCSO against petitioner. It was submitted, presence of petitioner as abettor would attract same punishment as main accused in view of Section 17 read with Section 21 of POCSO. 12. It was submitted, since in her statement before police victim had stated that she informed complainant about incident of 13.06.2020, only on 14.07.2023, delay in filing complaint was less than 30 days and explained as due to threat by VH. It was submitted, while passing impugned order, trial Court had appreciated above facts and on finding prima-facie material against petitioner, rightly rejected application. On said grounds, sought rejection of petition. 13. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order and material available. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 14. This revision petition is by petitioner (accused no.2) challenging order rejecting his application for discharge. Before examining merits of contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to important precedents on consideration of application for discharge as well as scope for interference with said order. 15. In CBI v. Aryan Singh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 also it is held: “10. … … … ….. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”. (Emphasis supplied) 16. And in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in (2023) 17 SCC 688, it held: “7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial Judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge-sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed. 8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge- sheet material only. 9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the charge-sheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 CrPC is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the IO. 10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. 11. This Court in State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709] adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held: (SCC pp. 721- 22, para 29) “29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.” 12. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227 CrPC is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. 13. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [State of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659: 1996 SCC (Cri) 820] and State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1110] has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of prima facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial. 14. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 CrPC which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings. 15. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460], where scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under: (SCC p. 475, paras 12-13) “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under CrPC.” - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 16. This Court in the aforesaid judgment in Amit Kapoor case [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460] has also laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 particularly in the context of prayer for quashing of charge framed under Section 228 CrPC is sought for as under: “27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. *** 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. *** 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.” 17. Wherefore, at time of consideration of application for discharge, Court would require to proceed on premise that material brought on record by prosecution is true and thereafter evaluate same to determine, whether facts emerging from it taken on face value, disclose existence of all ingredients of offences alleged. As noted above, offences alleged against present petitioner are under Sections 363, 506 and 114 of IPC read with Section 17 of POCSO i.e., kidnapping, intentional insult to provoke breach of peace and abetment. 18. Insofar as petitioner, charge-sheet refers to his role insofar as incidents of 13.06.2020 and 11.08.2023, that on 1.06.2020, VH took victim to petitioner’s house at 12:15 p.m., prior to taking her to lodge, where he assaulted her sexually, and on 11.08.2023, temporary injunction alleges, on petitioner’s instigation, VH kidnapped victim in Scorpio Car with intention to have forcible sexual intercourse with her. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 19. Said allegations appear based on assertions in complaint, wherein complainant stated that VH came with petitioner in Scorpio Car near Keerti Hotel, kidnapped victim with intention to have forcibly sexual intercourse. Absence of reference to petitioner in her statement recorded two days later cannot be considered at this stage, as that would be a matter for trial. 20. Apart from above, in her statement recorded during investigation, victim stated that on 11.08.2023, VH along with petitioner came near Keerti Hotel, VH threatened her into entering Car and after driving to outskirts of town, VH asked petitioner to get down and thereafter sexually assaulted her in Car. And, when she protested against taking her to Lodge at Davangere, he called petitioner back and asked him to drive Car to Davangere, but after visiting SS Hospital, Davangere, she was pushed out of Car near Harihar Bus Stand. 21. In statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, victim stated that VH and petitioner came near Keerti Hotel, Harihar, forced her into Scorpio Car, took her to outskirts of - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 town, when VH asked petitioner who was driving Car, to get down, whereafter, VH assaulted her sexually. And when she protested against being taken to Lodge at Davangere, VH called petitioner back, who drove vehicle to SS Hospital, Davangere and back to Harihar Bus Stand, when before pushing her out of vehicle, her neck was pressed. On careful reading, reference in said statement indicates allegations not being in singular to implicate only VH, but in plural, prima-facie implicating petitioner (as well as no other person is stated to be present). 22. Though, at this stage, allegations appear to be self- serving, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajoo and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2012) 8 SCC 553, held, ordinarily evidence of prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be evaluated on par with that of an injured witness. In R. Shaji v. State of Kerala reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266, it is held, evidence given in a Court under oath has great sanctity, though, can be used only for contradiction or corroboration, same would be material in support of prosecution case, until conclusion of trial. Thus, there appears prima facie case against petitioner and nothing more requires - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 to be considered. As in Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao’s case (supra) it is held, there cannot be mini trial at stage of consideration of application for discharge. Neither defence of accused nor including appreciation of inconsistencies in prosecution material can be considered. Therefore, contention about prosecution case, being riddled with inconsistencies would require rejection. 23. Insofar as contention about complaint being belated, entitling petitioner for discharge is noted, only to be rejected. As noted above, allegations about role of petitioner as abettor prima facie appears insofar as incident that occurred on 11.08.2023, about which victim is stated to have informed complainant after being dropped back at Harihar Bus Stand and complaint is filed on 03.10.2023 with explanation about complainant/family members of victim being under threat from VH. In fact, suspicion would arise, whether contentions urged by petitioner are as surrogate for accused no.1 and to clear pathway for VH seeking discharge. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 24. In any case, in view of above conclusions, impugned order rejecting petitioner’s application for discharge would be in accordance with law and not call for interference. Consequently, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65