1

Crl.RP 835/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.835 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MULBAGAL POLICE
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

AND:
SRI NARASIMHALU
S/O DANDODI MUNIRATHNAM NAIDU
AGED 35 YEARS
KOTHAPETA
PUNGANOOR TOWN, A P
... RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ
WITH 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 01.04.2009 PASSED IN SC NO.143/2008 PASSED
BY THE PRL.SJ, KOLAR AND DISCHARGING THE ACCUSED
NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 304B READ WITH 34
OF IPC AND 3, 4 AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION UNDER
SECTION 227 OF THE CR.P.C AND REMAND THE CASE
NO.143 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SJ, KOLAR
FOR TRIAL ON ITS MERITS IS ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

Crl.RP 835/2009

THIS CRL.RP. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Aggrieved by the order of discharge of the
respondent

in

respect

of

the

offence

under

Sections 498A and 304-B IPC, the present revision

petition has been filed.
2.

The

facts

reveal

that

the

petitioner

herein is the husband of Savithri (deceased) and

she committed suicide.

On a complaint filed for

the offence punishable under Sections 498A and

304-B IPC, the respondent who is the husband and
accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the parents-in-law
were

chargesheeted

respondent

was

and

spilt

the

up.

case
The

against

trial

was

the
held

against parents-in-law of the deceased in Sessions

Case No.3/2007.

PWs.1 to 7 and 10 who are the

close relative of the deceased and the neighbors

have turned hostile.
official witnesses.

The other witnesses were

As there was no evidence of

Crl.RP 835/2009

any cruelty and harassment and as all the relative

witnesses have turned hostile, accused Nos.2 and 3
were acquitted by the Sessions Court and no appeal
has been preferred by the State.

After the respondent was secured, Sessions

Case No.143/2008 was registered on the basis of
spilt up chargesheet and at that time, the Trial
Court heard the counsel and under the impugned
order discharged the accused.

It is against the

said order, this revision has been preferred.

3.

Heard the learned High Court Government

Pleader.

4.

The records in Session Case No.3/2007

were secured.

Perusal of the evidence therein

reveals that the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10.

Except PWs.8 and 9, all other witnesses who are
the close relatives and neighbors of the deceased
have turned hostile.

They have stated in their

evidence

that

the

Crl.RP 835/2009

relationship

between

the

deceased Savithri, her husband and parents-in-law

were cordial.

They have not stated anything about

the cruelty and harassment before the Court while

their

evidence

was

recorded.

The

other

two

witnesses are official witnesses, their evidence

is of no help to the prosecution so far as the
proof of cruelty and harassment is concerned.

It

is in these circumstances, the Trial Court has

granted an order of discharge.

No purpose will be

served if the trial is held against the respondent

and

it

would

be

waste

of

judicial

time.

Therefore, I do not find any justifiable grounds

to interfere with the order of discharge.
Consequently, the revision petition fails and
it is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/JUDGE
*bgn/-