Karnataka High Court
Sri Trilok G Mylar vs State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40113
CRL.RP No. 918 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 918 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI TRILOK G MYLAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O. GANGADHARAPPA
R/AT NO.421/10, 1ST MAIN KHB
COLONY, GANDHINAGARA EXTENTION,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINAYA KUMAR N D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU -560 064.
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed (BY SRI DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
by GURURAJ D
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
Location: High
Court of ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE
Karnataka COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
18.03.2025 IN CC NO.27584/2021 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL
CJM BENGALURU. B. ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXSURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40113
CRL.RP No. 918 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.27584/2021 rejecting discharge application filed by petitioner/accused under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('Cr.P.C', for short), this criminal revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Vinaya Kumar N.D., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on a complaint filed by one Smt.Saraswathamma K., on 13.06.2021, respondent - Police registered FIR in Crime no.149/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, ('IPC', for short) against petitioner. It was submitted that complaint was filed due to previous enmity between petitioner and complainant.
3. On completion of investigation, respondent filed charge-sheet on 22.09.2021 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 and 506 of IPC. It was submitted, since petitioner was falsely implicated, application for discharge was filed on 27.06.2023. Grounds urged in support of application was that alleged incident occurred on 08.06.2021 at 6:30 p.m., -3- NC: 2025:KHC:40113 CRL.RP No. 918 of 2025 HC-KAR but victim was taken to Railways Factory Hospital for treatment on 10.06.2021 at 11:30 a.m., and certificate dated 31.08.2021 describe injuries as simple.
4. Only with intention to implicate petitioner for serious offences, victim was taken to Fortis Hospital on 12.06.2021. Even though there was no mention of any injury to head in complaint or in statements recorded, wound certificate/discharge summary issued by Fortis Hospital described nature of injuries as grievous by referring to injury to head.
5. It was further submitted, there were grave inconsistencies in complaint, assault by petitioner was stated to be with weapon, but statement given by victim did not refer to any weapon. Further, when assault was with fist to his eyes, it could not have led to hippocampus injury which would be part of brain situated deep inside head. It was submitted, said injury was apparently not related to alleged incident and included only to implicate petitioner for more severe offences.
6. It was further submitted, there was no incident of wrongful restraint and therefore, charge-sheeting petitioner for offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC was also not -4- NC: 2025:KHC:40113 CRL.RP No. 918 of 2025 HC-KAR justified. Further discharge summary issued by Fortis Hospital indicated status of victim as positive for Retrovirus. Same would indicate that nature of injuries referred to were not caused by incident in question.
7. Despite making clear submissions as above, while passing impugned order, learned Judge by a bare statement that Court could not conduct mini trial by detailed evaluation of materials and meticulous consideration at stage of consideration of application for discharge and rejected application. It was submitted, as there was no proper consideration of application, impugned order called for interference.
8. On other hand, Sri Diwakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent opposed petition. It was submitted, registration of FIR and filing of charge-sheet for offences as alleged was on basis of material available. It was submitted, complainant had specifically stated about victim being held at incident spot and assaulted by petitioner causing injuries to his eyes. Complainant further stated that petitioner had threatened them of dire consequences which would substantiate registration of complaint for offences under -5- NC: 2025:KHC:40113 CRL.RP No. 918 of 2025 HC-KAR Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 and 506 of IPC. It was submitted, during course of investigation, respondent had recorded statements of four eyewitnesses, among whom two were independent eyewitnesses. Medical report and discharge summary issued by Fortis Hospital would clearly indicate nature of injuries as grievous. Therefore, impugned order did not call for any interference.
9. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, perused impugned judgment and order and material produced along with petition.
10. Perusal of FIR registered on 13.06.2021 in Crime no.149/2021 at Annexure-C would reveal that incident occurred on 08.06.2021 at 6:30 p.m. and complainant was none other than wife of victim and eyewitness. In complaint, she specifically stated that on date of incident when her husband was in front of his house, a boy named Mittoo was switching street-light on and off. When victim admonished boy and switched on street-light, petitioner who was a neighbour suddenly emerged and uttering abuses against victim, assaulted him with weapon on his left eye. When complainant went there and questioned him, he threatened them with dire -6- NC: 2025:KHC:40113 CRL.RP No. 918 of 2025 HC-KAR consequences. Thereafter, complainant took victim home for treating injuries. On noticing that injury was severe, after her son came home, victim was taken to hospital, when victim began murmuring gibberish. Therefore, he was taken to Fortis Hospital and therefore there was some delay in filing complaint.
11. Prima-facie perusal of contents of complaint would indicate that it contains assertions about ingredients to support registration of complaint for offences under Sections 323, 325, 341, 504 and 506 of IPC i.e., punishment for causing hurt, grievous hurt, wrongful restraint, intentional insult and criminal intimidation. It is seen, in course of investigation, police have obtained treatment records from Railways Factory Hospital as well as Fortis Hospital. Though certificate issued by Railways Factory Hospital describes nature of injuries as simple, there is reference of injured victim for treatment to higher hospital i.e., Fortis Hospital. Said hospital, on diagnosis considered nature of injuries as grievous. Apart from complainant and victim, police have recorded statements of two independent eyewitnesses, which would be prima-facie material for filing of charge-sheet. Whether prosecution would substantiate commission of offences as alleged against petitioner would be a matter for trial.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:40113 CRL.RP No. 918 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, reported in 2013 (5) SCC 762 has held:
"18. Normally, revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases."
13. In view of availability of prima-facie material constituting ingredients for offences alleged, rejection of application for discharge by Court does not appear to be perverse of contrary to law calling for interference. Consequently, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34