Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Ananda on 4 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44426
CRL.RP No. 113 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 113 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HULIMAVU POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP (PH)]
AND:
1. ANANDA
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.24, SIDDAPPA LAYOUT,
DODDAKALLASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
2. NARAYANAPPA
S/O KONDAPPA,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
ANUSHA V R/AT PASALAVARAPPALI,
Location: High YADAGARAHALLI POST,
Court of Karnataka ADDAGAL MANDALA,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (PH)]
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P
FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
07.10.2017 PASSED IN S.C.NO.976/2014 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF
XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44426
CRL.RP No. 113 of 2018
HC-KAR
(CCH-46) DISCHARGING THE ACCUSED NO.2 & 3- RESPONDENTS
HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES P/US 498A,306 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 07.10.2017 passed by XLV Addl.
City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), allowing
application filed for discharging accused no.2 and 3, this
revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned HCGP for petitioner-
State submitted, a complaint was filed by Sri Nagappa, stating
that Smt.Usha (victim) had married Sri PN Srinath (accused
no.1); Anand (Accused no.2) was her brother-in-law and
Nagappa (accused no.3) was her father-in-law, while Roopa-
(accused no.4) was wife of one Prasad. It was alleged that
accused no.1 was running travels business as well as parking
fee contract at Apollo Hospital along with victim jointly.
Accused no.1 was residing in apartment and victim had a
daughter. Accused no.1 was already married and had two sons.
He also had affair and married accused no.4, who was residing
NC: 2025:KHC:44426
HC-KAR
in a separate house. After third marriage, accused no.1 started
ill-treating victim. In this regard several panchayats were held
and that on night of 20.04.2014 victim informed complainant
over mobile phone of accused no.1 and informed that accused
no.1 and his family members were likely to do away with her
life.
3. And on 21.04.2014 at 6.30 p.m. when he went to
house of victim along with his wife, he found it locked. After
breaking open lock, victim was found hanging from a ceiling
fan. Suspecting that accused had killed victim and thereafter
hung her body, complaint was lodge. It was registered as
Cr.no.275/2014.
4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
accused no.1 to 4 for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 498A and 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After committal to Sessions
Court, same was registered as SC no.976/2014. In said
proceedings, accused filed application for discharge.
5. It was submitted, though prosecution had sought to
substantiate its charges with statement of 21 witnesses, which
NC: 2025:KHC:44426
HC-KAR
would more than prima facie substantiate charges against
accused, trial Court without proper consideration allowed
application insofar as accused no.2 and 3 and rejected it
respect of accused no.1 and 4. It was submitted, prosecution
case was based on death note of victim which would implicate
accused no.2 and 3 also. While passing impugned order, trial
Court observed death note did not specifically implicate accused
no.2 and 3. Such conclusion would not be justified, as same
would be matter for trial. On said ground sought for allowing
revision.
6. On other hand, Sri Sunil S Rao, learned counsel for
accused no.2 and 3, opposed petition. It was submitted,
complaint was vengeanceful against family member of accused
no.1. It was submitted, victim and accused were residing in
separate houses, in different places. Such being case, without
any specific material, prosecution had sought to implicate
accused no.2 and 3. Trial Court, on proper appreciation of facts
and circumstances and finding prima facie case, proceeded to
allow application of accused no.2 for discharge and there was
no scope for interference in revision petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:44426
HC-KAR
7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and
material on record.
8. This revision petition is against order allowing
application for discharge filed by accused no.2 and 3.
9. In their application specific contention urged was
accused no.2 was brother of accused no.1 and residing near
Konanakunte cross, at a distance of 12-14 Kms. from residence
of victim, while accused no.3 was resident of Pasalavarapalli,
Yedagarapalli Post, Addagal Mandal, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar
District. It was stated, even as per complaint, their main
grievance was victim had committed suicide due to alleged
affair of accused no.1 with accused no.4. There are no specific
allegations made against accused no.2 and 3. Therefore,
subjecting them to trial would be wasteful.
10. While passing impugned order, trial Court referred to
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v.
Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460,
wherein it is held, if prosecution case was based on prima-facie
material, application for discharge could not be entertained and
accused had to stand trial.
NC: 2025:KHC:44426
HC-KAR
11. Thereafter, it scrutinized material on record and
found that prosecution case to be primarily dependent on death
note of victim. Contents of death note do not implicate accused
no.2 and 3 for any offence. Hence, it allowed application insofar
as Accused no.2 and 3, and rejected it insofar as accused no.1
and 4.
12. Though learned HCGP made fervent submissions
against order discharging accused no.2 and 3, he failed to
indicate prima facie material insofar as accused no.2 and 3.
Thus, even applying ratio laid down in Amit Kapoor's case,
exercise of jurisdiction by trial Court while allowing application
for discharge would be fully in accordance with law.
13. No case for interference is made out. Revision
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg*
