Pavitra K vs State By Malebennur Police ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4200 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

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

         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1098/2021

BETWEEN:

PAVITRA K,
W/O PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O CHANNENAHALLI ALURUHATTI VILLAGE,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 522.                   ...PETITIONER

             (BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY MALEBENNUR POLICE STATION,
HARIHARA CIRCLE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.                             ...RESPONDENT

               (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.36/2018 DATED
10.08.2021 AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 304B, 34, 498A, 306 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT BY ALLOWING
THIS R.P.

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2



                             ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the father of

the deceased had filed a complaint alleging that this petitioner

was having illicit relationship with the husband of his daughter

and inspite of the same is noticed and brought to the notice of

the husband as well as the petitioner herein, this petitioner did

not stop the same and hence the victim took the extreme step of

committing suicide. Based on the complaint, the police have

invoked the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 306

read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. The police have investigated the matter and

filed the charge-sheet for the above offences. Hence, an

application was filed by accused No.3/petitioner herein invoking

Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

3. The main contention of the petitioner before the Trial

Court is that there is no prima facie evidence to connect accused

Nos.1 and 3. The main contention of the prosecution is that the

petitioner was having illicit relationship with accused No.1.

Accused No.3 being a married women is staying with her place of

abode at Allurhatti Village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga

District. There is no nexus or trustworthy evidence in the

charge-sheet material connect accused No.1 with accused No.3.

Based on the false death note, accused No.3 has been arraigned

in the charge-sheet. There is no direct link or talks or

involvement or instigation of accused No.3 with the marital life

of accused No.1 and hence prayed this Court to discharge the

petitioner. The same is opposed by the learned Public

Prosecutor before the Trial Court contending that the material

collected by the Investigating Officer and the statement of the

witnesses clearly discloses that there was an allegation of illicit

relationship between the petitioner and accused No.1. The Trial

Court having heard the respective learned counsel and on

perusal of the contents of the complaint and the charge-sheet

material and apart from that, taken note of the contents of the

death note in paragraph No.13 and also contents of the

complaint also extracted in paragraph No.12 of the order. A

detailed discussion is made in paragraph No.14 and hence there

are no grounds to set aside the order.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of

his contentions relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of PINAKIN MAHIPATRAY RAWAL v. STATE OF

GUJARAT reported in (2013) 10 SCC 48 and brought to the

notice of this Court paragraph No.27, wherein the Apex Court

discussed with regard to Section 306 of IPC refers to abetment

of suicide wherein an observation is made that prosecution has

to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased

committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of

suicide. But for the alleged extramarital relationship, which if

proves, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought

out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked,

incited or induced the wife to commit suicide.

5. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of K.V. PRAKASH BABU v. STATE

OF KARNATAKA reported in (2017) 11 SCC 176, wherein in

paragraph No.15, the Apex Court while discussing the

ingredients of Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, held that

extramarital relationship, per se, or as such would not come

within the ambit of Section 498A of IPC. Further, it is observed

that to explicate, merely because the husband is involved in an

extra marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the

mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which

would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of

Section 306 of IPC.

6. The learned counsel referring the above judgments

would contend that even assuming that the prosecution has

proved the charges leveled against the petitioner, the petitioner

cannot be convicted and sentenced for the offences and hence it

requires interference of this Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State and on perusal of the material on record,

the allegation against this petitioner is that she was having illicit

relationship with accused No.1. She was having illicit

relationship prior to the marriage of accused No.1 and even after

the marriage with the victim. The fact that the wife of accused

No.1 committed suicide is not in dispute. The main contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution is

mainly relying upon the false death note and also the allegation

made in the charge-sheet. The principles laid down in the

judgments referred supra is based on the material on record

after the conclusion of the trial. But in the case of hand, the

petitioner is seeking for relief of discharge. While seeking for

discharge, the Court has to look into the material, whether the

material on record requires for prosecuting and proceeding

against the petitioner. In the case on hand, specific allegations

are made in the complaint as well as in the charge-sheet

regarding illicit relationship between the petitioner and accused

No.1. Having considered the statements of the witnesses and

also the material on record, the Trial Court comes to the

conclusion that it requires trial and in paragraph No.14 discussed

in detail regarding complaint averment as well as death note.

On perusal of the death note also, specific allegations are made

against this petitioner that this petitioner is having illicit

relationship with the husband of the victim. Even inspite of she

intervened and requested to stop the illicit relationship, this

petitioner did not heed to the request. When such allegations

are made in the death note, the statement of the complainant as

well as in the charge-sheet, it requires trial whether there was a

illicit relationship between them or not and the principles laid

down in the judgments referred supra are not applicable to the

facts of the case and those orders are not passed in connection

with discharge of the accused. Those judgments are passed on

merits of the case after the full fledged trial and the prosecution

has to prove the allegations during the course of trial only. When

such being the case, it is not a fit case to exercise the revisional

jurisdiction.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD