D. Bhaktavatsala vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioners approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 21676/2012 and/or to discharge the accused/petitioners in the above said case by setting aside the orders passed by the learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore dated 15th October 2013 and confirmed by the orders of the learned Sessions Judge (FTC-IV), Bangalore City in Crl. Revision Petition No. 353/2013 dated 27th August 2014.

The brief factual matrix of this case is that, a lady by name Smt. B. Rani lodged a first information report against the petitioners before Rajajinagar Police making certain allegations that on 17/18.03.2012 in the early hours at about 3.00 a.m. the petitioner No. 1 and his son have tapped the door of the house of the complainant and thereafter at about 5.00 a.m. the petitioners have dragged the complainant and also torn her nighty and pulled her hair, etc., and also assaulted her and threatened her with dire consequences of pouring kerosene on her and litting fire. On these allegations, the Police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet before the Court for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

The accused persons appears to have filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the above said offences.

The learned Magistrate has passed an order refusing to discharge the accused by giving reasons. The learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the statement of the witnesses and also other materials in the charge sheet if they are uncontroverted or sufficient to proceed against the accused persons. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioners herein submits that he has produced certain materials, documentary evidence to show that the witnesses cited by the prosecution are all untrustworthy for reliance and witnesses were involved in many number of cases and also they have given false statements before the Police. The learned Magistrate without considering the said documents has passed the orders.

Being aggrieved by the orders of the learned Magistrate, the petitioners have also approached the Sessions Court by way of Criminal Revision Petition No. 353/2013. The IV Fast Track Judge, Bangalore City vide orders dated 27th August 2014 has dismissed the said Revision Petition also. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that the Trial Court after hearing the accused persons and after looking to the materials on record came to the conclusion that the documents produced by the accused at the stage are not sufficient to discharge the accused. It was specifically observed that those documents may be helpful to the accused to seek acquittal before the Trial Court and the Trial Court is necessarily have to frame charges and proceed with the trial.

Being aggrieved by the above said two orders, the present petition is filed before this Court. The learned Counsel has specifically contended that atleast the Trial Court and as well as the Revisional Court should have considered the contents of the documents produced by the accused before passing such orders. An opportunity has not been given to the accused to establish those documents before the Court. Further, added to that, if the Trial Court and the Revisional Court gone through those documents that those documents were sufficient to discharge the accused. But, I am afraid whether the Trial Court can look into those documents when those documents not being brought on record in accordance with law under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Of course, a vide discretion is given to the Magistrate to hear the accused and also look into all the documents produced by the prosecution under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. But the said provision cannot be enlarged to the extent that, even any documents produced by the accused without being brought on record in accordance with law can be looked into even for the limited purpose so as to infer through out the prosecution case unless that document does not secure a formal proof under land and the same is conclusive and without giving any opportunity either to the complainant or to the witnesses against whom such allegations are made that their statements are not trustworthy for acceptance. Therefore, I don''t find any strong reasons to differ from the opinion expressed by the learned Magistrate and as well as the Revisional Court. However, the Revisional Court has also rightly expressed that those documents can be considered by the Court at the time of evidence and that may be helpful to the accused to seek an acquittal on merits of the case. The accused though have produced those documents can only be used during the course of evidence in order to confront to the witnesses or otherwise to prove the untrustworthiness of the witnesses of the prosecution.

Therefore, I am also of the opinion that the Trial Court and the Revisional Court have rightly dismissed the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. It goes without saying that the learned Magistrate and as well as the Revisional Court have appreciated the contents of the charge sheet papers and found that there are eye witnesses to the incident and the Police have investigated the matter, visited the spot, drew up the mahazar, etc., and the Courts have found that those materials if they go uncontroverted are sufficient to proceed against the accused persons to put the accused on trial. Therefore, even the semblance of suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges on the basis of the allegations made, provided the allegations made also in my opinion, can be considered by the Court only for the limited purpose for framing charges. Ultimately, the Court has to see whether the prosecution proves its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the petitioners are at liberty to produce all the documents at the time of evidence during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses or at the time of leading the defence evidence before the Court. In that event, the Court has to bestow all its attention to all the materials placed before; the Court in order to draw any inference either in favour of the prosecution or against the prosecution. Hence, I don''t find any strong reasons to set aside the orders passed by the learned Magistrate or the Revisional Court. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contends that the petitioner No. 4 - Lavanya is pregnant and she cannot attend the Trial Court regularly.

However, the Criminal Procedure is widening, the petitioner No. 4 is at liberty to make necessary application before the Court and the Court has to apply its judicious mind to pass appropriate suitable orders on such application in accordance with law.

With these observations, the petition stands dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A. No. 1/2014 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and hence, the same is also dismissed.