Kallanagouda @ Ravi vs Smt.Nanda @ Kavita
2025 Latest Caselaw 5579 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Kallanagouda @ Ravi vs Smt.Nanda @ Kavita on 26 March, 2025

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591
                                                        CRL.RP No. 100142 of 2016




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                               BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
                         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100142 OF 2016
                                      (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
                       BETWEEN:

                       KALLANAGOUDA @ RAVI
                       S/O KUBERAGOUDA PATIL,
                       AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: L.I.C AGENT,
                       R/O: NAINAPUR,
                       TAL: RON, DIST: GADAG.
                                                                     ...PETITIONER

                       (BY SRI. S.C. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       SMT. NANDA @ KAVITA
                       W/O. KALLANAGOUDA @ RAVI PATIL,
                       AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
                       R/O: MUDHOL,
VN
         Digitally
         signed by V
         N BADIGER     TAL: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
BADIGER Date:
        2025.03.29
         11:52:30
         +0530
                                                              ...RESPONDENT
                       (BY SRI. GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

                            THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397
                       R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE
                       JUDGMENT CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCE
                       PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498(A) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE DATED
                       24/06/2011 PASSED IN C.C.NO.410/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE
                       ADDL. J.M.F.C. MUDHOL, WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE
                       LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
                       BAGALKOT, SITTING AT JAMAKHANDI IN CRL.A NO.50/2011
                       DATED 27/06/2016, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND SET
                       HIM AT LIBERTY BY SETTING ASIDETHE ABOVE SAID
                       JUDGMENTS.
                               -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591
                                    CRL.RP No. 100142 of 2016




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

                      ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

1. Heard Sri.S.C.Hiremath, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri.Gurudev Gachinamath, learned

counsel for the respondent.

2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered

an order of conviction in C.C.No.410/2006 for the offence

punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code

(for short, 'the IPC') and ordered to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/- which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.50/2011 is

the revision petitioner.

3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision

petition are as under:

4. Accused is the husband of Smt.Nanda @ Kavita

W/o Kallanagouda Patil, is the respondent in the case. She

filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal

Procedure Code (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') which was

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591

registered in P.C.No.26/2004 alleging the commission of

offence under Section 498(A), 363 and 365 of the IPC.

Private complaint was referred to the Police under Section

156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, Police investigated the

matter after registering the case and finally filed 'B' report.

Thereafter, protest petition came to be filed

5. Learned trial Magistrate considering the sworn

statement of the complainant and witnesses and oral

documents, took cognizance and case was ordered to be

registered as criminal case.

6. After due trial, accused was convicted for the

offence punishable under section 498(A) of the IPC and

acquitted for the remaining offences and sentenced.

7. Being further aggrieved by same, accused filed

an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.50/2011.

8. Learned Judge in the first Appellate Court

sitting at Jamakhandi, dismissed the appeal on merits on

reappriciation of the material evidence on record.

Thereafter, the accused is before this Court.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591

9. Sri.S.C.Hiremath, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the

petition, contended that Police after thorough investigation

have filed 'B' report, but learned trial Magistrate took

cognizance based on the sworn statement and other

documents which has resulted in miscarriage of justice as

there was no offence proved against the revision

petitioner.

10. He would also contend that the learned Judge in

the First Appellate Court mechanically upheld the order of

conviction resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought

for allowing the revision petition.

11. Alternatively, Sri.S.C.Hiremath, would contend

that the parties are now separated by a decree of divorce

and living separately. Taking note of the same, by

enhancing the fine amount reasonably, sentence of one

year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under

Section 498(A) of the IPC, needs to be set aside by

showing lenience and sought for allowing the petition to

such extent.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591

12. Per contra, Sri.Gurudev Gachinamath,

representing the respondent-de facto complainant

supports the impugned judgement.

13. He would further contend that merely on the

ground that the investigation officer has filed 'B' report

would not be sufficient to entertain the revision petition of

the accused before this Court having regard to the limited

revision jurisdiction.

14. More so, when complainant has been successful

in establishing all ingredients which is cogent and

convincing evidence on record attracting the offence under

Section 498(A) of the IPC and thus sought for dismissal of

the revision petition.

15. Insofar as alternative prayer is concerned,

Sri.Gurudev Gachinamath would contend that the fact of

divorce is not in dispute but harassment that has been

caused to the revision petitioner when the marriage was

subsisting cannot be lost sight and sought for dismissal of

the revision petition in toto.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591

16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this

Court perused the material on record meticulously. On

such perusal of material on record, it is crystal clear that

revision petitioner is the husband of respondent.

Admittedly, they are now separated by a decree of

divorce.

17. Taking note of the oral testimony that has

been placed on record coupled with other material

evidence placed on record, learned trial Magistrate noticed

that there was a physical and mental harassment caused

by the revision petitioner to the respondent. Therefore,

convicted the accused only for the offence punishable

under Section 498(A) of the IPC.

18. For the reasons best known to the complainant,

she did not challenge acquittal of the accused for other

offences.

19. In the case on hand, it is pertinent to note that

initially 'B' report came to be filed based on the protest

petition, learned trial Magistrate took cognizance only for

the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591

Thereafter, on considering the oral and documentary

evidence placed on record, rightly convicted the accused

persons for the offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC.

The said aspect of the matter reappreciated by the learned

Judge in the First Appellate Court while confirming the

order of conviction and sentence.

20. Therefore, in view of limited revisional

jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered opinion that no

case is made out to interfere with the order of conviction

passed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First

Appellate Court.

21. This would take this Court to the next limb of

the arguments of the revision petitioner which is the

alternate submission made by Sri.S.C.Hiremath.

22. Taking note of the fact that the parties are now

separated by decree of divorce and living separately. Son

born in the wedlock, is now being rearing by the revision

petitioner, enhancing the fine amount in a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- to be payable in two instalment and setting

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591

aside the imprisonment would better serve the ends of

justice.

23. In view of the forgoing discussion, the following

order is passed:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court of simple imprisonment of one year is hereby set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to be payable in two equal installments on or before 30.04.2025 and 31.05.2025 respectively.

(iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount of would automatically result in restoration of the order sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the first appellate Court.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5591

(iv) After the receipt of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, entire amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to respondent under due identification.

(v) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant.

SD/-

(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

AC Ct-cmu