Karnataka High Court
Shivananda Havalagi vs The State Of Karnataka By on 21 January, 2020
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1093/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVANANDA HAVALAGI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O DHAREPPA HAVALAGI,
RESIDING AT C/O ASHOK MANNIKERI,
PITRU KRUPA,
OPP: B.L.D.E. WOMEN'S HOSTEL,
ASHRAM ROAD PADMAVATHI COLONY,
BIJAPURA-586 101.
2. MRS.SUREKHA HAVALAGI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O. SHIVANANDA BHAGALI,
RESIDING AT SALOTAGI TALUK POST,
SALOTGI, BIJAPURA-586 217.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN C., ADV.,
P2-DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN AS
NOT PRESSED V/O DATED 21/01/2020.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIJAYNAGAR POLICE STATION,
2
VIJAYNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 001,
THROUGH ITS SPP.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
01.09.2018 IN S.C.No.1071/2015 BY THE LXXI ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND
DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 307 AND 495 READ WITH 34 OF
IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though, this matter came up for admission and hearing on I.A.No.1/2018, with the consent of both the parties, it is heard and disposed of finally.
This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C' for 3 short) challenging the order of dismissal of application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C by LXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-72) vide order dated 01.09.2018 in S.C.No.1071/2015.
2. Heard of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-Vijayanagar police filed charge sheet against the petitioner/accused No.3 and three other accused persons for the offices punishable under Sections 498(A), 307 and 495 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter 4 referred to as 'DP Act' for short). The complainant - Smt. Manjula filed the compliant before the respondent- Vijayanagar police on 07.01.2015 alleging that she got married to accused No.1-Lakkappa Havalagi in the year 2014 and after the marriage, the complainant and accused No.1 were residing in the house which belongs to accused No.2-Satheesh Havalagi on lease basis. After the marriage, accused persons started demanding money from the complainant and that on 27.05.2014 accused No.1 demanded money from the complainant for the purpose of purchase of car for petitioner/accused No.3. The complainant transferred Rs.51,000/- to the account of the petitioner/accused No.3. Thereafter, accused No.1 again demanded money in order to meet the hospital expenses of accused No.4 who is the sister of accused Nos.1 to 3 and money was transferred to her husband's account. In spite of the same, they went on demanding money from 5 the complainant. They also demanded the amount of provident fund and also demanded salary amount from her. Thereafter, on 06.01.2015 at about 9 pm., when the complainant was in the house, accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the house and demanded her to vacate the house as it belongs to accused No.2 and when she refused, accused Nos.1 and 2 poured petrol and tried to let fire. Thereby, they attempted to commit the murder of the complainant. The complainant escaped from their clutches and lodged the compliant before the respondent police. The police after investigation filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the above stated offences. After committal, accused No.3 along with other accused persons filed application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C to discharge them from the alleged offences. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide order dated 01.09.2018 dismissed the application holding that there is sufficient material placed 6 on record to frame charges against the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.3 filed this revision petition before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 has contended that on perusal of FIR and other statement, absolutely there is no material to show that the petitioner/accused No.3 demanded money from the complainant and he was not at all residing in the said house. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were residing along with the complainant. Except receiving Rs.51,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of purchase of car by way of transfer to the account of the petitioner, absolutely there is no material for framing of charges either for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC or any other offence alleged by the prosecution. If there is any such allegation, that would not attract Section 498(A) of IPC. Taking Rs.51,000/- for the purpose of purchase of car is only a loan amount, 7 which is not considered as demand for dowry. Therefore, the trial Court committed error in holding that there is material in framing charges against the petitioner/accused No.3 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, which is not correct. Absolutely, there is no material to show that the petitioner has committed any alleged offence as on 06.01.2015. The entire allegation is against accused Nos.1 and 2, but not against the petitioner/accused No.3. Therefore, prayed to set aside the order passed by the trial Court and to discharge the petitioner/accused No.3 from the alleged offence.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP has supported the order passed by the trial Court and contended that the trial Court has rightly perused the charge sheet material and held that there is material to frame charges against the accused persons. The amount of Rs.51,000/- was transferred to the petitioner's account for the purpose of 8 purchase of car and accused No.1 received amount of Rs.65,000/- in order to meet the hospital expenses of accused No.4. The further statement of the complainant recorded by the Investigation Officer on the next day of the alleged offence clearly goes to show that at the instigation of accused persons, accused Nos.1 and 2 attempted to commit the murder of the complainant. At the stage of framing of charges, the Court cannot appreciate the probative value of the statement and material on record for framing of charges. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, point that arises for consideration before this Court is:
Whether the order under challenge calls for interference?
9
8. On perusal of the record, admittedly, the relationship of the petitioner and complainant is not in dispute. The marriage of accused No.1 with the complainant and the complainant resided in the house of accused No.2 along with her husband is not in dispute. The police produced the bank statement which reveals that Rs.51,000/- was transferred to the account of petitioner on 27.05.2014. On perusal of FIR, it reveals that on 06.01.2015 accused Nos.1 and 2 entered the house and forcefully tried to vacate the complainant on the ground that the house belongs to accused No.2 and then accused Nos.1 and 2 poured petrol and tried to let fire. Thereby, they attempted to commit the murder of the complainant. The FIR and complaint do not reveal the name of the petitioner to show that he also participated in the said alleged offence in order to frame charges under Section 307 of IPC.
10
9. In the further statement of the complainant, which was recorded on the next date of the alleged offence, she has stated that the petitioner also instigated accused Nos.1 and 2 to commit the alleged offence. But, there is no material to show that the petitioner involved in the alleged offence for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Nowhere in the material collected by the Investigation Officer shows that this petitioner instigated accused Nos.1 and 2 to commit the murder of the complainant on 06.01.2014. Therefore, the trial Court though considered the material on record, but failed to consider that there is no offence alleged against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. However, with regard to offence under Section 498(A) of IPC is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner along with other accused persons suppressed the earlier marriage of accused No.1 with one Kavitha, which has to be proved by the 11 prosecution during trial. At this stage, this Court cannot presume that the petitioner not involved in the alleged offence for the offence under Sections 495 and 498(A) of IPC. In fact from the beginning, the petitioner was the beneficiary of Rs.51,000/- which was transferred by the complainant to the petitioner's account. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was involved in the alleged offence and there is no ingredient for attracting offence either under Section 498(A) or Section 495 of IPC. However, the prosecution is required to prove the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act as to whether the demand for dowry was made either before the marriage or after the marriage. Therefore, there is no material available on record. The trial Court can alter the charges at any stage under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. Such being the case, when there is material on record to frame charges against accused No.3 for the offence under Sections 498A and 495 12 of IPC and DP Act, however, there is no material to frame charges against the petitioner/accused No.3 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Though, the petition filed by accused No.4 was dismissed as not pressed, but there is no ingredient in the material placed on record to frame charges against accused No.4 under Section 307 of IPC. Therefore, accused Nos.3 and 4 are liable to be discharged for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. With regard to framing of charges against the accused persons for other offences is concerned, I pass the following ORDER Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. The order dated 01.09.2018 passed by LXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-72) in S.C.No.1071/2015 is partly modified. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are discharged from the alleged offence under Section 13 307 of IPC. However, there is ingredient to frame charges against accused Nos.1 to 4 with regard to other offences are concerned. Hence, the trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law by framing charges as stated above.
However, if any evidence is available against all the accused persons during trial, then the trial Court is at liberty to alter the charges under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., before passing the judgment.
In view of disposal of revision petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PB