Karnataka High Court
Mainuddin @ Mohinuddin And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:672
CRL.RP No. 200074 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200074 OF 2024
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MAINUDDIN @ MOHINUDDIN S/O ABBAS ALI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
R/O. JATTI COLONY, HUTTI LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584115.
2. SIRAJ CHOWDRY @ SIRAJUDDIN CHOWDRY
S/O SYED SAB @ SYED HUSSAIN,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
R/O. KAKANAGAR, HUTTI, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584115.
3. MAHIBOOB KORABU S/O MOULASAB,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
Digitally signed R/O. JAYANTHINAGAR, ATHARGA,
by LUCYGRACE TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586112.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. ALLABHAKSHA KORABU S/O MOULASAB,
KARNATAKA AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
R/O. JAYANTHINAGAR, ATHARGA,
TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586112.
5. MAMTAZ A HAMEED NADAR
D/O HAMEED NADAF,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VIJAYAPOORMIKA SHOLAPUR RURAL,
TQ. AND DIST. SOLAPUR-413001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:672
CRL.RP No. 200074 of 2024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
LINGASUGUR POLICE STATION,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128,
R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
2 JAVEED S/O BANDANAWAZ,
AGE:39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. ABDULLA COLONY HATTI VILLAGE,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584115.
VIDE ORDER DATED 25.09.2024.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02-02-2024
PASSED IN SC NO. 106/2021 BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR SITTING AT SINDHANUR,
ITINERARY AT LINGASUGUR, DISTRICT RAICHUR
(LINGASUGUR PS CRIME NO. 78/2021 DISTRICT RAICHUR)
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 143,147,504,498-
A, 306. 323 R/W 149 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:672
CRL.RP No. 200074 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
The petitioners are before this Court in this revision
petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
Cr.P.C., assailing the order dated 02.02.2024 passed in
S.C.No.106/2021 by the Court of III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Raichur, sitting at Sindhanur, Itinerary at
Lingasugur, arising out of Crime No.78/2021 registered by
Lingasugur Police Station, Raichur district, for the offence
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 498A, 306, 323,
read with Section 149 of IPC, wherein, the application filed
by the petitioners under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking
discharge has been rejected by the jurisdictional Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsels for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, the trial Court has erroneously rejected the
application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of
Cr.P.C. He submits that, sufficient material is not found in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:672
the first information or in the charge-sheet, so as to
prosecute the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC. The deceased had committed suicide in
her husband's house and petitioners are all residing
separately. The deceased had a tendency of committing
suicide and even earlier also, she had attempted to commit
suicide. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. In
support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on two
Judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Netai Dutta Vs. State of W.B., reported in
(2005) 2 SCC 659 and in the case of Rohini Sudarshan
Gangurde Vs. The State of Maharastra and another,
reported in 2024 SAR (Cri.) 1027.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2 have opposed the petition. They submit that, there
are specific allegations as against all the accused persons
about the harassment and torture meted out by them on
the deceased, immediately prior to she committing suicide
and the said act of the accused had resulted in deceased
NC: 2025:KHC-K:672
committing suicide. Therefore, the essential ingredients so
as to invoke the offence punishable under Section 306 of
IPC, is prima-facie found against the accused persons. The
trial Court is fully justified in rejecting their application.
Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.
5. A perusal of the material on record would go to
show that, the accused No.1 who was already married to
accused No.6, had thereafter married the deceased
Reshma allegedly suppressing his first marriage with
accused No.6. Subsequently, deceased Reshma came to
know about the first marriage of the accused No.1 with
accused No.6 when she went to her matrimonial house. It
is alleged that, in the matrimonial house she was tortured
and harassed by all the accused persons and unable to
bear the same, she had attempted to commit suicide on
03.04.2021 by consuming sleeping pills. After she
recovered, she started residing in a rented premises which
was provided to her by accused No.1. The allegation in the
first information and in the charge-sheet against the
accused persons is that, on 12.04.2021 the accused
NC: 2025:KHC-K:672
persons came to the said rented premises in which the
deceased was residing, and made a demand to give
divorce to accused No.1 and in furtherance of such
demand, they allegedly abused and assaulted her and this
was informed by her to the first informant who is her
brother on the night of 12.04.2021, when he had called her
over phone. Thereafter, on 13.04.2021, when the first
informant tried to contact his sister over phone, she had
not answered his call and subsequently, it was found that
she had committed suicide in her house by consuming
sleeping pills. It is also stated in the first information that,
the deceased had left behind a death note, making
allegations against all the accused persons and had stated
that, they were the cause for her death. Therefore, it is
evident that, the accused persons had committed such an
act on the day prior to the deceased committing suicide
which had either instigated or abetted her to take such
drastic step of committing suicide. Under the
circumstances, it cannot be said that, there is absolutely
no material to prosecute the accused persons for the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:672
charge-sheeted offences and it also cannot be said that,
the act committed by the accused persons did not have
any nexus with the death of the deceased.
6. The order impugned has been passed rejecting
the application filed by the petitioners seeking discharge
for the charge-sheeted offences. However, in the present
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed
his arguments only insofar as the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC and the order impugned rejecting the
petitioner's application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.,
insofar as other charge-sheeted offences is not seriously
challenged.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde (supra), having taken
notice of the fact that the allegation in the said case was
that, the wife of the deceased allegedly was harassing him
for money and property and except the said allegation,
there was no other allegation against her, has held that,
the said evidence is not sufficient to hold that, the accused
wife had played an active role or had instigated the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:672
deceased to commit suicide. It is observed in the said case
that, mere marital dispute is not sufficient to establish the
abetment for suicide. In the case of Netai Dutta (supra),
an employee of an company had committed suicide after
he was transferred and the employer was charge-sheeted
for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the said
case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, the
proceedings initiated against the accused under Section
306 of IPC, cannot be sustained. The facts and
circumstances of the present case are totally different and
there are sufficient allegations and material in the present
case as against the accused persons, which would prima-
facie attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of
IPC. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the
trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application
filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.,
seeking discharge and the said order does not call for any
interference. Accordingly, the following order:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:672
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed;
(ii) Pending applications if any stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SVH
CT:PK
