- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10536 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1104 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. A N S S RAJASEKAR S/O A N S SUNDARAM NADAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDENT OF #158-D JAILANI STREET TUTICORIN - 628 002 TAMIL NADU …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SWAROOP T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AGASTEES JEBA ANATH S/O P CHANDRABOSE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O #123, 13TH ROAD 1ST BLOCK, PRAKRUTHI TOWNSHIP KALYANA NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 043 2. P CHANDRABOSE AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE PARAMANANDAM R/O #323, 1ST MAIN ROAD KAMAKOTI NAGAR PALI KARNAL CHENNAI - 306 401 Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10536 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2019 3. SMT VIMALA CHANDRABOSE W/O P CHANDRABOSE AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE REVISION PETITIONER R/O #323, 1ST MAIN ROAD KAMAKOTI NAGAR PALI KARNAL CHENNAI-306401 4. STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR HENNUR POLICE STATION HENNUR BANGALORE-560 043 REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. V. SUBASH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R4/STATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO (a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL DATED 23.07.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1110/2016 AND TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT TO DISPOSE OFF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ON MERITS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10536 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by Defacto complainant with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed in CC No.8107/2013 dated 22.03.2016 by the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.1110/2016 dated 23.07.2019 by the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69). 2. Respondents No.1 to 3 herein were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Section 406, 465, 471, 420, 201 and 120(B) of IPC by Hennur Police Station, Bangalore and were arrayed as accused No.1 to 3 in the charge sheet. They were tried for the charge sheeted offences before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in CC No.8107/2013. The trial Court by judgment and order dated 22.03.2016 acquitted Respondent No. 1 to 3 herein of the charge sheeted offences in CC No.8107 of 2013. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10536 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2019 3. The defacto complainant had unsuccessfully challenged the said judgment and order of acquittal before the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69) in Criminal Appeal No.1110/2016, which was dismissed on 23.07.2019. It is under these circumstances, the defacto complainant is before this Court. 4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that prosecution in all, had cited 8 charge sheeted witnesses in the present case as CW1 to CW8. However, only CW4 was examined as PW1 in the present case and 4 documents were got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. The trial Court having appreciated that except PW1, no other witness was examined in the present case and the oral and documentary evidence placed on record was not sufficient to prove the charge sheeted allegations against the accused No.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt, had rightly acquitted them of the charge sheeted offences. The appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record has confirmed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in CC No.8107/2013. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10536 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2019 5. Under the circumstances, I did not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal which is assailed in this revision petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir and ors., v. State of Haryana reported in (2025) INSC 120 has held that the scope of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Courts below is very limited. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that this revision petition does not merit consideration. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26