- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7375 CRL.P No. 13417 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13417 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP) AND: MR. K.JAYACHANDRA, S/O K.MALLIKARJUNA, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7375 CRL.P No. 13417 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT.NO.80/11/80-2, ADITHYANAGAR, KRISHINA NAGAR, KURNOOL, KNL CAMP-B, ANDHRA PRADESH- 518 002. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.02.2025 IN CRL.RP NO.108/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CC NO.22670/2021 DTD 04.01.2023 ON THE FILE OF XLI ACMM AT BENGALURU., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7375 CRL.P No. 13417 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. 2. The petition is preferred by the State calling in question an order of the concerned Court, which discharges the accused in Crl.R.P.No.108/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC. The discharge is not qua accused No.1, but accused No.2. The concerned Court, after rendering the following reasons, has discharged the present respondent - accused No.2. "13. On considering the charge sheet, statement of witnesses, application, objection and revision petition and hearing of both sides, my answer to aforesaid points in as under; POINT No.1: In the Affirmative. POINT No.2: As per final orders REASONS POINT No.1 14. Before going to the merits of the case, this court has relied on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2011 AIR SCW 3730 Sajjan Kumar VS CBI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7375 CRL.P No. 13417 of 2025 Para 21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:- (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.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. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. ii) 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. iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7375 CRL.P No. 13417 of 2025 the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. By keeping in mind the above guidelines, I have carefully perused the entire charge sheet and statement of witnesses. CW2-Manakram Kumawath, CW3-Bimal Kumar Nethi, CW-4 Mahendra Kumawath, CW5-Chenna Ram Kumawath, CW6-Smt. Sunitha, CW7-Jaggaraj, CW8-Goutham Chand. These witnesses are categorically stated that CW1 is doing ornaments, business in the name and style as Rajesh Jewelleries. 15. Accused No.1 and revision petitioner came to shop of Parameshwara Pawn Jewelleries and obtained the golden ornaments. Further these witnesses are stated same in their statement which is reiterated as under: " ನಂತರ ನದ MqÀªÉUÀ¼ÀߣÀÄ ೆೆದುೊಂಡು ೋ ºÀtªÀߣÀÄ ೕಡೆ & ನದ ಒಡೆಗಳನುನ ೕಡೇ ಸ ಾಸುದರಲ!ೆ ಅಂಗ#ಯ ಬ&ೆ ಸೂಯ' (ರ) ಸು*+ ವ ಜಯಚಂದ/ ಮತು ಮಧು ಎಂಬುವರು ಬಂದು ಗ3ಾ4ೆಯನು 5ಾ# ºÉÆÃVzÀÝgÀÄ. 16. I.O. has conducted investigation regarding purchase of the golden ornaments by the accused. In this regard, he has produced the bills. It discloses that the accused person have purchased the golden ornaments and there is entry regarding the alleged incident. 17. At this stage, this court has relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State Vs. S. Selvi [2018 Crl.L.J 1422] wherein he urged that bill discloses prima-facie transaction between the accused and the defacto complainant. The accused has filed application for discharge of the present petitioner(accused No.2) from the alleged offence. The materials produced before this Court almost presumed that there is evidentiary value and which discloses the Ingredients of the alleged offence. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7375 CRL.P No. 13417 of 2025 18. By considering the statement of witness, charge sheet and complaint, prima-facie it reveals that the revision petitioner has not participated in purchasing the golden ornaments along with the other accused persons. The very initial document itself discloses that the complainant filed complaint on 23.03.2021 before th respondent police against the accused No.1 only, he has forgotten the name of the present revision petitioner. 19. On considering the entire allegations made in the charge sheet and arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it reveals that the revision petitioner has not challenged the order passed on the charge sheet and statement of witnesses. The revision petitioner has not challeged the issuance of summons. Therefore, the Judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand. 20. At this stage, as per the law laid down at the time of considering the application for discharge there is no law or law does not holds to direct to conduct mini trial. But the documents produced by the I.O. along with the charge sheet, itself discloses that accused No.1 alone has purchased the ornaments. Therefore, I am of the opinion that whatever material collected by the I.O. is not at all related to the revision petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is not materials on record to frame charge against the revision petitioner for the alleged offence punishable U/s420 of IPC. 21. In charge sheet I.O. mentioned accused including the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable U/s.506 of IPC. By considering the entire statement of the CW.2 to CW.8 recorded by I.O. U/Sec 162 of Cr.P.C, they have not stated anything about the criminal intimidation. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed error in considering the materials collected by the P.P against the revision petitioner. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. POINT No.2 22. for going reasons, proceed to pass following ORDER - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7375 CRL.P No. 13417 of 2025 The revision petition filed U/Sec 397 of Cr.P.C by revision petitioner is hereby allowed. Further, the impugned order passed by the XLI ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.22670/2021 on 04.01.2023. is hereby setaside. The revision petitioner (accused No.2) is discharged from the alleged offence punishable U/s.420 and 506 of IPC." 3. The concerned Court after following the judgment of the Apex Court on the issue, has discharged accused No.2. There is no warrant of interference in the case at hand in the petition filed by the State calling in question the discharge of the accused for offence punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10