Syed Ashif And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3771 Kant

                            1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

               CRL.RP.No.200087/2021

BETWEEN:

1.    SYED ASHIF
      S/O SYED NISAR AHAMED
      AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: M.R.
      R/O MISBA NAGAR
      KALABURAGI-585103

2.    KHAJAMI BEGUM
      W/O SYED NISAR AHAMED
      AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
      R/O MISBA NAGAR
      KALABURAGI-585103

3.    SYED KHALEEM
      S/O SYED NISAR AHAMED
      AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK
      R/O MISBA NAGAR
      KALABURAGI-585103

4.    KHNIZA BEGUM
      W/O SHAIKH MAHIYOODDIN AHAMED
      AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
      R/O MISBA NAGAR
      KALABURAGI- 585103

                                         ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI R.S.LAGALI ADVOCATE)
                                   2




AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GRAMEEN P.S.,
REPRESENTED THROUGH
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH KALABURAGI-585104
                                                 ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)

       THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CODE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET
ASIDE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C., BY
THE COURT OF I-ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KALABURAGI, IN S.C.NO.199/2019 DATED 01.07.2021 AND
DISCHARGE THE REVISION PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES
UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 302, 304(B) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC
AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT.


       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                             ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 397 r/w

Section 401 of Cr.P.C., by the accused praying to set aside

the order dated 01.07.2021 passed by I-Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in S.C.No.199/2019 on

the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and

discharge the revision petitioners for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B r/w Section

34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the

respondent/police have registered the case against the

petitioners in Crime No.301/2018 for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 498-A, 302, 304-B

r/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961. The police have investigated the

matter and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B r/w Section 34 of IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

and thereafter, cognizance was taken. The petitioners

filed an application before the trial Court for discharge. The

trial Court considering the material available on record

came to the conclusion that it is not a case for discharge

and dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the said

order, the present petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners vehemently contended that material placed by

the prosecution does not attract the offence under Section

302 of IPC and the trial Court failed to consider this

aspect. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of

this Court the opinion given by the doctor in the

postmortem report wherein it is mentioned that the cause

of death is due to asphyxia as a result of constriction of

neck by a ligature. Hence, the material does not disclose

committing of heinous offence of murder punishable under

Section 302 of IPC.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit

that the application is filed seeking discharge and the trial

Court in detail discussed the material on record and also

considering the principles laid down in the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Sanjay Kumar Jain vs.

State of Delhi reported in (2011) 11 SCC 733, Satya Singh

vs. State of Pubjab reported in (2001) 8 SCC 633 and

Pawankumar vs. State of Haryana reported in (1998) 3

SCC 309 has rightly dismissed the application. Hence,

the impugned order does not require interference of this

Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners and the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and perused

the material available on record and also perused the order

passed by the trial Court. The trial Court comes to the

conclusion that the matter requires to be tried and no

grounds are made out to discharge the accused. The very

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that

the material collected by the Investigating Officer is not

suffice to proceed against the petitioners for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The said contention

cannot be accepted in this petition since the order

challenged is with regard to discharge. Whether there are

sufficient materials to frame charge against the

petitioners/accused for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of IPC or not cannot be appreciated at this

stage. The petitioners can urge these grounds while

framing charges before the trial Court. I do not find any

merit in the petition to allow the petition and to set aside

the order impugned passed by the trial Court.

7. In view of the observations made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

In view of disposal of the main matter,

I.A.No.1/2021 for stay does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*