Sri. Madegowda vs Sri. K C Raju
2025 Latest Caselaw 442 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Madegowda vs Sri. K C Raju on 6 June, 2025

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                               -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:19522
                                                       CRL.RP No. 1601 of 2024


                 HC-KAR



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1601 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)
                BETWEEN:

                SRI. MADEGOWDA
                S/O. DODDATHAMMEGOWDA,
                AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
                EX. MLC.,
                KUMBARAKOPPALU MAIN ROAD,
                MYSURU - 570 002.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI. RENUKARADHYA R. D., ADVOCATE)

                AND:

                1.   SRI. K. C. RAJU
                     S/O. CHENGAPPA K. M.,
                     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
                     R/AT NO. 56, 7TH MAIN,
                     9TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM,
                     MYSURU - 570 009.
Digitally
signed by
CHANDANA        2.   STATE OF KARNATAKAV
BM                   BY ITS VIJAYANAGAR POLICE, MYSURU,
Location:
High Court of        REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Karnataka            HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                     BENGALURU - 560 001.

                3.   SRI. LINGARAJEGOWDA
                     S/O. BYRAPPA,
                     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
                     MEMBER OF LAKSHMIKANTHA TEMPLE TRUST,
                     R/AT KUMBARAKOPPALU,
                     MYSURU - 570 002.
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:19522
                                       CRL.RP No. 1601 of 2024


 HC-KAR



4.   SRI. SURESH KUMAR JAIN,
     FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
     OWNER OF JAIN INDUSTRIES,
     R/AT FLAT NO. 427/B,
     HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA,
     METAGALLI,
     MYSURU - 570 016.

5.   SRI. JAYARAMU
     S/O. SRI. MARIGOWDA,
     ADVOCATE,
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
     R/AT NO. 629, MANCHEGOWDA KOPPALU,
     MYSURU - 570 017.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP, FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W
401 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 438 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.28/2022
DATED 27.02.2024 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC-IV, MYSURU IN
C.C.NO.840/2015 DATED 02.03.2020 AND BY ALLOWING THIS
CRL.RP.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR


                         ORAL ORDER

This petition by respondent No.1 in Crl.A.No.28/2022 is

directed against the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 passed in

Crl.A.No.28/2022 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Mysuru, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.1-appellant

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

was allowed by the Sessions Court, which set aside the judgment

of acquittal dated 02.03.2020 passed by C.C.No.840/2015 and

remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in

accordance with law.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional SPP for respondent No.2 and perused the material on

record.

3. For the proposed order, notice to remaining

respondents is dispensed with.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that

respondent No.1 - complainant filed the instant complaint, which

was registered as C.C.No.840/2015 against the petitioner/accused

and other accused persons for the offences punishable under

Sections 114, 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 506 read with 149 of

IPC. The said proceedings have been contested by the

petitioner/accused No.1 and the Trial Court proceeded to pass the

order dated 02.03.2020 acquitting the petitioner and all other

accused persons. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal,

respondent No.1/complainant/victim filed an appeal under Section

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

372 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the First Appellate Court vide

impugned order dated 27.02.2024 thereby setting aside the order

of acquittal and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for

reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. While arriving at the

said conclusion, First Appellate Court held as under:

"Being aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal dated 02.03.2020 of C.C.No.840/2015 passed by the learned JMFC-IV, Mysuru, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the appeal under Sec.372 of Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution is as hereunder;

On the basis of the complaint filed by one Sri.K.C.Raju a case in Cr.No.106/2009 is registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sec.114, 143, 147, 148, 447, 324 and 506 R/w Sec.149 of IPC., After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge- sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sec.114, 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 506 R/w Sec.149 of IPC. The Trial Court framed charges, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Prosecution examined in all ten witnesses as PWs-1 to 10 and as many as 9 documents came to be marked as per Ex.P-1 to 9 and the material object as per MO.1. The 313 Cr.P.C., statement came to be recorded.

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

3. After hearing both the side, the Trial Court framed the following Points for consideration;

1. Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 06.05.2009 at about 12 noon, at site belonging to Skanray Technologies, situated at Hebbal Industrial Area, accused persons in furtherance of their common object, formed unlawful assembly and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.143 r/w Sec.149 of I.P.C. ?

2. Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the aforesaid date, time and place, accused persons in furtherance of their common object, made galata with CW.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.147 r/w Sec.149 of I.P.C.?

3. Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused persons in furtherance of their common object, armed with deadly weapons made galata with CW.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.148 r/w Sec.149 of I.P.C.?

4. Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused persons in furtherance of their common object, trespassed into the said site of CW.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.447 r/w Sec.149 of I.P.C.?

5. Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused persons in furtherance of their common object, accused No.1 abetted other accused persons to commit offence on CW.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec. 114 r/w Sec.149 of I.P.C.?

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

6. Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused persons in furtherance of their common object, accused No.2 assaulted on CW.1's face with stone, and caused simple injuries thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.324 r/w Sec.149 of I.P.C.?

7. Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused persons in furtherance of their common object, accused No.3 assaulted on CW.1's waist with legs, accused No.4 & 5 dragged CW.1 and laid him down, accused No.4 twisted CW.2's finger, accused No.2 assaulted on CW.2's cheek and caused simple injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.323 r/w Sec.149 of I.P.C.?

8. Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused persons in furtherance of their common object, caused criminal intimidation by threatening CW.1 with dire consequence of life and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.506 r/w Sec.149 of I.P.C.?

9. What Order?

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the accused No.4 by name Sri.Shivakumar @ Kumar Gowda @ Ayya expired. The Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence acquitted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sec.114, 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 506 R/w Sec.149 of IPC.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 02.03.2020 of C.C.No.840/2015 passed

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

by the learned JMFC-IV, Mysuru the Appellant / Complainant preferred the Appeal and reiterated the contents of the complaint. It is the contention of the Appellant, the Trial Court has not taken into consideration of the evidence of the injured witnesses and the Trial Court ought to have given more weight- age which establishes the presence of the witnesses on the spot as well as the assault made by the accused persons. It is the contention of the Appellant, giving more weight-age to the evidence of injured persons has been laid down in many pronouncements of the Hon'ble High Courts and Supreme Court.

6. It is the contention of the Appellant, the Trial Court has brushed aside his evidence as well as the evidence of PW.1 on reasons which are not legally sustainable. It is the contention of the Appellant, the observation of the Trial Court as the PW.1 has not produced the shirt before the Investigating Officer and casting doubt on his evidence is not legally sustainable and contended it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to seize the material objects at the time of Investigation. It is the contention of the Appellant, mere not recovery or seizure or production of the blood stained shirt would not go into the root of the case when the fact of assault is established by both oral and documentary evidence namely Medical Certificate.

7. It is the contention of the Appellant, vide Para 13 of the judgment, the Trial Court has clearly stated that

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

he has reiterated all the allegations made in the complaint marked as per Ex P-2 and when such being the case there was no legal impediment to relay on his evidence. It is the contention of the Appellant, at Para 14 of the judgment the Trial Court has observed that he has failed to answer the question as to the allotment of site in favour of Skanray Technologies Limited, even if he did not know about the allotment of the site in favour of Skanray Technologies Limited, the fact remains that the Skanray Technologies Limited is the owner and in possession of the property as per Ex.P-7 and 8.

8. It is the contention of the Appellant, when there is a legally acceptable document to show the ownership the oral evidence looses its significance. It is the contention of the Appellant, the Trial Court has further observed that he has pleaded ignorance about the pendency of the civil suit in O.S.No.321/2009, again this is not a fact which ought to have been within his knowledge or within the knowledge of PW.1.

9. It is the contention of the Appellant, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.1 who is an injured / eye witness to the incident who has completely supported his evidence and the case of the Prosecution. It is the contention of the Appellant, the Trial Court at Para 22 of the judgment while appreciating the entire evidence that the Trial Court has opined his evidence and the evidence of Pws.1, 5 and 6 is not corroborating the case of

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

the Prosecution without proper discussion or conclusion.

10. It is the contention of the Appellant, at Para No.22 of the judgment, the Trial Court has opined there are major contradictions regarding visit to K.R. Hospital for treatment and again it is not disclosed what are the contradictions and the Trial Court has also opined the M.O.1 is not seized in accordance with procedure established by law, wherein the M.O.1 is seized during the investigation. It is the contention of the Appellant, the Trial Court has opined that the Prosecution has failed to produce original of Ex.P-7 and 8 and contended marking of any document without objection by the accused persons will entitle the Court to look into the contents of the documents and also contended if there was any objection by the accused persons for marking the copies of documents.

11. It is the contention of the Appellant, it is not a case wherein the documents are to be proved as is to be proved in a civil matter and the documents at Ex.P-7 and 8 clearly goes to show that the Skanray Technologies Limited is in lawful possession of site to which the accused persons have trespassed illegally and committed the offences. It is the contention of the Appellant, the Trial Court conclusion that the witnesses are interested witnesses since they are working in Skanray Technologies Limited is not amenable to legal fiction since they were natural witnesses present at the spot.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

12. It is the contention of the Appellant, the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence of the Doctor examined as PW.7 who treated himself and the PW.1 and issued the Wound Certificates as per Ex.P-5 and P-6 and nothing is whispered about the evidence of PW.7 and the Trial Court ought to have correlated his evidence as well as the evidence of PW.1 with the evidence of PW.7 who has treated. It is the contention of the Appellant, the Trial Court has committed an error in marking the entire 161 statement of the hostile witnesses without there being any explanations by the Prosecution in respect of 161 statement and marking of 161 Cr.P.C. statement in its entirety is not recognized under law.

13. It is also the contention of the Appellant, the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the entire evidence and the documents in-toto and evaluated the same and came to a conclusion in this case and also contended the Trial Court has not applied judicious mind while arriving at the conclusion for acquitting all the accused persons. With all other grounds, the Appellant prayed to set aside the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 02.03.2020 of C.C.No.840/2015 passed by the learned JMFC-IV, Mysuru and to allow the appeal.

14. Heard and perused the entire record.

15. Under the above facts and circumstances, the Points that would arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether the judgment of acquittal 02.03.2020

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

of C.C.No.840/2015 passed by the learned JMFC-IV, Mysuru calls for interference by this Court?

2. What order?

16. My findings on the above Point is as under:

Point No.1 : Affirmative

Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:

REASONS

17. Point No.1:- The learned Advocate for the Appellant has referred to the case of the Prosecution and contended the Appellant by name Sri.K.C.Raju is the Complainant as well as the injured. In addition to that, it was the submission that the PW.1 has also sustained injuries. It was the submission, the hostile evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is not sufficient to acquit the accused persons. It was the submission, the PWs.5 and 6 are the spot mahazar witnesses and the PW.7 is the Doctor who has treated the PWs.1 and 2 and issued the Wound Certificates as per Ex.P-5 and P-6.

18. It was the submission, the PWs.8 to 10 are the Police Officials who have conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. It was the submission, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 itself is sufficient to fulfill the ingredients of the offences charged against the accused persons. It was the submission, the evidence of PW.1 is against the accused No.4, accordingly contended viewing from any angle sufficient oral and documentary evidence is

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

available to convict the accused persons. It was also the submission, during the pendency of the proceedings, the accused No.4-Shivakumar @ Kumaragowda @ Ayya is dead.

19. The learned Advocate for the Appellant has referred to the contents of the spot mahazar marked as per Ex.P-1 and contended the same is proved. It was the submission sufficient evidence is available to fulfill the ingredients of Sec.447 of IPC., as the contents of Ex.P-7 and P-8 reveals the right, title and interest and possession of the site by the Skanray Technologies Ltd., as the accused persons have committed criminal trespass. The learned Advocate for the Appellant has also referred the Para No.22 and 23 of the judgment and also contended even without there being any contractions the Trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused persons.

20. It was also the submission, the stone came to be marked as per M.O.1 was seized vide mahazar and the other witnesses who were present at the place of the incident are the natural witnesses and there was no question of interested witnesses. It was also the submission, the Prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and inspite of it the Trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused persons and the same calls for interference by this Court. By disputing the observations made by the Trial Court and reaffirming the grounds of appeal, it was the submission to set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 02.03.2020 in

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

C.C.No.840/2015 on the file of the learned JMFC-IV, Mysuru and to allow the appeal.

21. As against the said submission, it was the submission of the learned Advocate for the Respondents about the property dispute as well as the pendency of civil litigation and contended only on the guise to protect the property the Appellant has lodged a false complaint without there being any incident. It was the submission, no material evidence is available to fulfill the ingredients of the offences charged against the accused persons and contended except the stone marked as per M.O.1, no other weapon or weapons have been used by the accused persons.

22. It was the submission, the accused persons have not committed the alleged offences and it was the submission about the delay in lodging the complaint without proper reason and explanation. It was the submission, the Appellant is the owner of the Company and contended the witnesses examined as PWs.3 to 6 not supported the case of the Prosecution. It was also the submission about the pendency of civil litigation and referred the relevant portion of evidence of PW.1 and contended the stated alleged knife is not seized.

23. The learned Advocate for the accused persons has also referred to the relevant portion of cross examination of PW.2 who also turned partial hostile and unable to give the schedule of the disputed property and he has expressed his innocence about the institution of

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

O.S.No.321/2009 as well as the Writ Petitions on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.

24. It was also the submission, the witnesses are the employees of the Company and interested witnesses and also contended the clothes are not seized and there was no blood stained clothes. By referring to the contents of Ex.P-7 and P-8, it was the submission the same are not related to the alleged place of incident. It was also the submission, there was no immediate statement and by taking into consideration of all the materials available on record, the Trial Court has properly appreciated and acquitted the accused persons and the same does not call for any interference by this Court.

25. The learned Advocate for the accused persons has referred that the accused No.4 was not a party in the Writ Petition and he has been falsely implicated. It was the submission, the Trial Court has properly appreciated the available oral and documentary evidence and of the opinion the Prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby acquitted the accused persons and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. With all other grounds, the learned Advocate for the accused persons prayed to dismiss the appeal.

26. On consideration of the materials available on record, on the complaint of CW.1 - Sri.K.C.Raju a case in Cr.No.106/2009 is registered for the offences punishable

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

under Sections 114, 143, 147, 148, 447, 324 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC. On completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC. On appearance of the accused persons by name Sri.Madegowda, Sri.Lingarajegowda, Sri.Suresh Kumar Jain, Sri.Shivakumar @ Kumargowda @ Ayya and Sri.Jayaramu charges framed for the said offences and the accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

27. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses as per PWs.1 to PW.10 and relied upon the documents as per Ex.P-1 to P-9 and got marked M.O.1. The 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the accused persons recorded. During the pendency of the proceedings, the accused No.4 by name Sri.Shivakumar @ Kumargowda @ Ayya expired. Vide judgment dated 02.03.2020 the Trial Court has framed as many as 8 Points for consideration in respect of the offences charged against the accused persons.

28. As contended in the appeal memo, the Trial Court has considered all the Points No.1 to 8 at a time as the referred points are inter-related and arising out of the same incident and involves common appreciation of evidence, hence to avoid the repetition of the Points taken together for common discussion. Thereby, vide judgment dated 02.03.2020 acting under Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C the accused No.1 to 3 and 5 acquitted for the offences

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

punishable under Sec. 114, 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 506 r/w Sec.149 of IPC and further ordered the M.O.1 seized under PF.No.39/2009 being worthless ordered to be destroyed after Appeal period.

29. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the complainant by name Sri.K.C.Raju has preferred the Appeal among various grounds. As stated above, as contended in the appeal memo even though the Trial Court has framed as many as 8 points for consideration in respect of each of the offences that the Trial Court has committed error in giving finding by taking all the Points No.1 to 8 together for consideration.

30. In view of the nature of the case on hand and in view of the respective Points referred to at point No.1 to 8, the Trial Court ought to have given separate and independent findings on each of the Points, particularly for having fulfilled the ingredients of the referred offences and charged against the accused persons. It is forthcoming from the record, as per the case of the Prosecution the PWs.1 and 2 by name Sri.Jayashankar and Sri.K.C.Raju said to have sustained injuries and treated by the Dr.B.S.Jayanthi examined as PW.7. Thereby, in view of the nature of the case on hand, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 itself plays an important role to consider the case of the Prosecution.

31. It is necessary to mention, partial hostile evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and other witnesses itself is not

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

sufficient to negative the case of the Prosecution as all the suggestions put forth during the course of cross examination of Pws.1 and 2 conducted on behalf of the Prosecution have been admitted. In view of the offence punishable under Sec.447 of IPC., the fact of ownership in respect of the disputed property also plays an important role.

32. In the case on hand, the Prosecution relied upon the copies of the Possession Certificate and the Sale Deed as per Ex.P-7 and P-8 which substantiate the title in respect of the disputed property subject to disposal of the pending civil litigation. The ingredients of Sec.447 of IPC., reveals with regard to criminal trespass in respect of the disputed property. The evidence of the Doctor examined as PW.7 reveals with regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the Pws.1 and 2 as detailed in the wound certificates marked as per Ex.P-5 and P-6, wherein the Doctor was pleased to opine the Pws.1 and 2 have sustained the injuries which are simple in nature.

33. It is the contention of the Appellant, the entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of the hostile witnesses came to be marked without there being any suggestions with regard to the contents of the statement and rightly contended in the appeal memo marking of entire statement in its entirety is not permissible under law, particularly without suggesting the contents of the statement.

34. The Trial Court was of the opinion about the various contradictions in the testimony of PW.1 which

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

remained without any discussion except mentioning there are major contradictions in the testimony of PW.1. Further, the Trial Court has also committed error in considering the evidence of other witnesses examined as Pws.4 and 5 on the ground they are stated to be the interested witnesses.

35. It is the settled principle of law and it has also been observed it is the duty of the Court to consider the evidence of such stated interested witnesses with caution. But, no such particular reasons have also been assigned by the Trial Court in considering the stated interested witnesses and even in this regard also the Trial Court has committed error.

36. Vide memo dated 05.01.2024 the learned Advocate for the Appellant has produced the copies of the judgment passed in WP.No.10948/2020 connected with WP.No.4776/2009, copy of judgment in O.S.No.637/2009 dated 26.04.2013, copy of Lease cum Sale Agreement dated 19.08.2008 and copy of Rectification Deed dated 21.05.2010. For the reasons mentioned in the appeal memo, it is the very contention of the Appellant that the Trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused persons without assigning proper reasons and without applying the judicial mind while disposing the matter. For the said reasons, the Appellant prayed to set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 02.03.2020 of C.C.No.840/2015 passed by the learned JMFC-IV, Mysuru and to allow the Appeal.

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

37. By taking into consideration of the grounds of Appeal, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellant herein has made out a bonafide ground to set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 02.03.2020 of C.C.No.840/2015 passed by the learned JMFC-IV, Mysuru. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of acquittal calls for interference by this Court.

38. At the same time, this Court is of the opinion to remand the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law by taking into consideration of the material evidence available on record and also by affording due opportunity to the Prosecution as well as the accused persons. With these observations, the appeal under consideration deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.

39. Point No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The Appeal filed by the Appellant / Complainant by name Sri.K.C.Raju U/Sec.372 of Cr.P.C. is hereby ALLOWED.

The Judgment of acquittal dated 02.03.2020 of C.C.No.840/2015 passed by the learned JMFC-IV Mysuru, is hereby SET ASIDE.

The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law without influencing the observations made in the judgment.

- 20 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

The bail granted in favour of the Accused persons / Respondent No.1 to 4 would continue till the disposal of the matter before the Trial Court.

Send back the TCR along with the copy of the Judgment forthwith.

The file be consigned to the Record Room."

5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the

Appellate Court has assigned cogent and valid reasons as to why

there were several errors in the order which require reconsideration

and the Appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction correctly in setting

aside the order of the Trial Court in remitting the matter back to the

Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. At

any rate, in the absence any adverse findings recorded against the

petitioner while remanding the matter back to the Trial Court, it

cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or

infirmity nor can the same be said to be perverse or capricious

warranting interference by this Court under Section 397 read with

Section 401 of Cr.P.C.

6. Under these circumstances, by leaving open all

contentions to be decided by the Trial Court in accordance with

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19522

HC-KAR

law, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS