Karnataka High Court
Shakuntala And Ors vs Girijabai And Anr on 3 June, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2808
CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200036 OF 2025
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SHAKUNTALA W/O MANIK BIRADAR,
AGE:45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. HUNSGERA VILLAGE, TQ. HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR.
2. MANIK S/O SHIVARAM BIRADAR,
AGE:54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HUNSGERA VILLAGE, TQ. HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR.
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA 3. VIJAYKUMAR S/O MANIK BIRADAR,
SHERIGAR AGE:19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
Location: HIGH R/O. HUNSGERA VILLAGE, TQ. HUMNABAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DIST. BIDAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. RAJESHWARI TIPPANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HUMNABAD POLICE STATION,
HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR,
REPRESENTED ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2808
CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. GIRIJABAI W/O SHIVAPUTRA BIRADAR,
AGE:50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTRURE AND HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. HUNSGERA VILLAGE, TQ. HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR-585330.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI K.M. GHATE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT
REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
04.10.2024 OF DISMISSAL OF DISCHARGE APPLICATION
PASSED IN S.C.NO.5001/2023 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BASAVAKALYAN, SITTING AT HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
Heard Smt. Laxmi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 and Sri.
K.M.Ghate, learned counsel appearing for the de-facto
complainant/respondent No.2.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2808
HC-KAR
2. This revision petition is filed with the following
prayer:
"Wherefore, the Revision Petitioners prays that,
this Hon'ble Court may pleased to allow the present
Revision petition and set aside the order dated
04.10.2024 of dismissal of discharge application
passed in S.C.No.5001/2023 by the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Basavakalyan, sitting at
Humnabad, District Bidar in the interest of justice."
3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the revision petition are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged with Humnabad Police
by the respondent No.2-Girija, contending that, herself and
her husband Shivaputra Biradar, were eking out their
livelihood by coolie work and they have three children by
name Anjaneya, Veeresh @ Ved Prakash and Bhagyashree.
They had a dispute with regard to a tailed roof house with
their cousin brothers. On 04.10.2022, Sri. Manik S/o.
Shivaram picked up a quarrel with regard to the improper
distribution of the land. After a while, wife of Sri. Manik
visited the house of the complainant along with her sons
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2808
HC-KAR
Krishna and Vijaykumar and her husband and picked up the
quarrel with the family members. Her brother-in-law by
name Mallikarjun tried to pacify the quarrel by saying that, it
is a Dussara festival day, and they should not quarrel with
each other and advised them to go away from the house. At
that juncture, the second son of the complainant namely
Veeresh @ Ved Prakash was sitting near the outer door of
the house and the accused No.1-Shakuntala pulled the hands
of Veeresh and thrown away him on a stone. Her children
Krishna and Vijayakumar, kicked the son of the complainant.
At that juncture, the husband of the accused No.1-Manik told
the others that, the members of the family of the
complainant should not be left alone and instigated others to
take away the life of Veeresh @ Ved Prakash. The brother-in-
law of the complainant Mallikarjun, uncle of the complainant
Pundalik, and brother of the complainant Avinash tried to
pacify the quarrel, at that juncture son of the accused No.1-
Krishna took a knife and assaulted her younger brother.
4. Because of the assault and throwing away, the
second son of the complainant became unconscious and he
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2808
HC-KAR
was taken to the Government Hospital for treatment. The
Doctors who examined the second son of the complainant
declared that he is no more.
5. Based on the complaint, the Police have
registered the case in Crime No.149/2022 for the offences
punishable under Sections 324, 445, 504, 506 and 302 read
with Section 34 of IPC and investigated the matter and filed
charge-sheet.
6. The petitioners herein filed an application seeking
discharge on the ground that, the death of Veeresh @ Ved
Prakash took somewhere else and in order to have an upper
hand in the civil dispute a false criminal case has been
foisted against the petitioner. The application seeking
discharge was opposed by the prosecution by filing detailed
objections.
7. Learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties,
dismissed the application seeking discharge of the petitioners
from the criminal case. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners are before this Court in this revision petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2808
HC-KAR
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners Smt.
Laxmi, vehemently contended that, on account of a civil
dispute among the petitioners and the complainant party, an
unnatural death of the second son of the complainant which
has occurred elsewhere, has been made as a tool to foist a
false criminal case against the petitioners herein, in order to
take upper hand in the pending civil dispute. As such, the
petitioners are innocent which has been ignored by the trial
Judge while dismissing the application seeking discharge and
thus sought for allow the revision petition.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, learned HCGP No.1 and Sri. K.M.Ghate, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
10. They would further contend that, the defence of
innocence is to be established during the trial, after the
prosecution places the cogent evidence on record.
11. They would also contend that, the charge-sheet
materials in the form of postmortem report and statements
of witnesses including the injured witness who is a younger
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2808
HC-KAR
brother of the complainant, would be sufficient enough to
proceed with the criminal case by framing necessary charges
and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
12. Having heard the arguments from both sides,
perused the materials on record meticulously. On such
perusal of the material, it is crystal clear that, there is no
loss of time in approaching the police by the complainant.
The incident said to have occurred on the Dussara Festival
day. With a found hope that the second son of complainant
would be alive, the complainant rushed to the hospital after
the incident along with Mallikarjun and others. The Doctors
at Government Hospital examined the young boy Veeresh @
Ved Prakash and found that, he had breathed his last, a little
while ago.
13. Having noticed the same, the incident was also
reported to the jurisdicational police through a medico legal
case report. The police immediately arrived and took the
statement of the complainant and then registered the case.
The sequence of events, thus, would clearly indicate that
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2808
HC-KAR
hardly there was any scope for the complainant to cook up a
false case against the petitioners herein in order to take a
upper hand in the pending civil proceedings.
14. Be it what it may. It is for the trial Court to
consider these aspects during the trial. The prima-facie
materials in the form of postmortem report of Veeresh @
Ved Prakash, injury certificate of brother of the complainant
being the part of the charge-sheet materials apart from spot
mahazar and other materials on record, would prima-facie
make out a case for framing of the charges and proceeding
with the trial against the petitioners.
15. The grounds urged in the revision petition are in
the nature of defence which cannot be considered by this
Court at this stage by holding a mini trial, as holding a mini
trial is deprecated in the matter of this nature through
catena of Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
16. Suffice to say that the material on record would
be sufficient enough to proceed against the petitioners for
the alleged offences and it is for the prosecution to establish
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2808
HC-KAR
the case by placing cogent evidence on record and
petitioners will have their chance to put up their case in the
form of cross-examination to the prosecution witness and
also to place such other material which are favourable to
them in the trial.
17. In view of the above discussion, dismissal of the
application seeking discharge by the learned trial Judge is
just and proper which requires no interference, that too, in
the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
following order:
ORDER
(i) The Revision petition is meritless and is
hereby dismissed.
(ii) It is made clear that, the observations
made by this Court during the course of this order
shall not affect the rights of the parties in the
pending trial, in one way or the other.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SVH
CT:PK
