Karnataka High Court
Sri Trilok G Mylar vs State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40113
CRL.RP No. 918 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 918 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI TRILOK G MYLAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O. GANGADHARAPPA
R/AT NO.421/10, 1ST MAIN KHB
COLONY, GANDHINAGARA EXTENTION,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINAYA KUMAR N D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU -560 064.
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed (BY SRI DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
by GURURAJ D
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
Location: High
Court of ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE
Karnataka COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
18.03.2025 IN CC NO.27584/2021 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL
CJM BENGALURU. B. ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXSURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40113
CRL.RP No. 918 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging impugned judgment and order dated
18.03.2025 passed by VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru, in C.C.no.27584/2021 rejecting discharge
application filed by petitioner/accused under Section 239 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('Cr.P.C', for short), this
criminal revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Vinaya Kumar N.D., learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that on a complaint filed by one
Smt.Saraswathamma K., on 13.06.2021, respondent - Police
registered FIR in Crime no.149/2021 for offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860, ('IPC', for short) against petitioner. It was
submitted that complaint was filed due to previous enmity
between petitioner and complainant.
3. On completion of investigation, respondent filed
charge-sheet on 22.09.2021 for offences under Sections 341,
323, 325, 504 and 506 of IPC. It was submitted, since
petitioner was falsely implicated, application for discharge was
filed on 27.06.2023. Grounds urged in support of application
was that alleged incident occurred on 08.06.2021 at 6:30 p.m.,
NC: 2025:KHC:40113
HC-KAR
but victim was taken to Railways Factory Hospital for treatment
on 10.06.2021 at 11:30 a.m., and certificate dated 31.08.2021
describe injuries as simple.
4. Only with intention to implicate petitioner for
serious offences, victim was taken to Fortis Hospital on
12.06.2021. Even though there was no mention of any injury to
head in complaint or in statements recorded, wound
certificate/discharge summary issued by Fortis Hospital
described nature of injuries as grievous by referring to injury to
head.
5. It was further submitted, there were grave
inconsistencies in complaint, assault by petitioner was stated to
be with weapon, but statement given by victim did not refer to
any weapon. Further, when assault was with fist to his eyes, it
could not have led to hippocampus injury which would be part
of brain situated deep inside head. It was submitted, said injury
was apparently not related to alleged incident and included only
to implicate petitioner for more severe offences.
6. It was further submitted, there was no incident of
wrongful restraint and therefore, charge-sheeting petitioner for
offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC was also not
NC: 2025:KHC:40113
HC-KAR
justified. Further discharge summary issued by Fortis Hospital
indicated status of victim as positive for Retrovirus. Same
would indicate that nature of injuries referred to were not
caused by incident in question.
7. Despite making clear submissions as above, while
passing impugned order, learned Judge by a bare statement
that Court could not conduct mini trial by detailed evaluation of
materials and meticulous consideration at stage of
consideration of application for discharge and rejected
application. It was submitted, as there was no proper
consideration of application, impugned order called for
interference.
8. On other hand, Sri Diwakar Maddur, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent opposed petition. It
was submitted, registration of FIR and filing of charge-sheet for
offences as alleged was on basis of material available. It was
submitted, complainant had specifically stated about victim
being held at incident spot and assaulted by petitioner causing
injuries to his eyes. Complainant further stated that petitioner
had threatened them of dire consequences which would
substantiate registration of complaint for offences under
NC: 2025:KHC:40113
HC-KAR
Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 and 506 of IPC. It was submitted,
during course of investigation, respondent had recorded
statements of four eyewitnesses, among whom two were
independent eyewitnesses. Medical report and discharge
summary issued by Fortis Hospital would clearly indicate nature
of injuries as grievous. Therefore, impugned order did not call
for any interference.
9. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, perused
impugned judgment and order and material produced along
with petition.
10. Perusal of FIR registered on 13.06.2021 in Crime
no.149/2021 at Annexure-C would reveal that incident occurred
on 08.06.2021 at 6:30 p.m. and complainant was none other
than wife of victim and eyewitness. In complaint, she
specifically stated that on date of incident when her husband
was in front of his house, a boy named Mittoo was switching
street-light on and off. When victim admonished boy and
switched on street-light, petitioner who was a neighbour
suddenly emerged and uttering abuses against victim,
assaulted him with weapon on his left eye. When complainant
went there and questioned him, he threatened them with dire
NC: 2025:KHC:40113
HC-KAR
consequences. Thereafter, complainant took victim home for
treating injuries. On noticing that injury was severe, after her
son came home, victim was taken to hospital, when victim
began murmuring gibberish. Therefore, he was taken to Fortis
Hospital and therefore there was some delay in filing complaint.
11. Prima-facie perusal of contents of complaint would
indicate that it contains assertions about ingredients to support
registration of complaint for offences under Sections 323, 325,
341, 504 and 506 of IPC i.e., punishment for causing hurt,
grievous hurt, wrongful restraint, intentional insult and criminal
intimidation. It is seen, in course of investigation, police have
obtained treatment records from Railways Factory Hospital as
well as Fortis Hospital. Though certificate issued by Railways
Factory Hospital describes nature of injuries as simple, there is
reference of injured victim for treatment to higher hospital i.e.,
Fortis Hospital. Said hospital, on diagnosis considered nature of
injuries as grievous. Apart from complainant and victim, police
have recorded statements of two independent eyewitnesses,
which would be prima-facie material for filing of charge-sheet.
Whether prosecution would substantiate commission of
offences as alleged against petitioner would be a matter for
trial.
NC: 2025:KHC:40113
HC-KAR
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vinay Tyagi v.
Irshad Ali, reported in 2013 (5) SCC 762 has held:
"18. Normally, revisional jurisdiction should
be exercised on a question of law. However,
when factual appreciation is involved, then it
must find place in the class of cases resulting
in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is
required to be exercised so that justice is
done and there is no abuse of power by the
Court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of
the same would not be a sufficient ground for
interference in such cases."
13. In view of availability of prima-facie material
constituting ingredients for offences alleged, rejection of
application for discharge by Court does not appear to be
perverse of contrary to law calling for interference.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
