Umesh and Others vs Nagarathnamma H.K.

Budihal R.B., J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Counsel for the revision petitioners, during the course of argument, made the submission that Respondent No. 4/Pushpa is the daughter-in-law of the deceased Kotraiah. It is also his submission that much earlier to the alleged incident in this case, revision petitioner No. 4 also lodged a complaint against the complainant in this case and her son, alleging that there was a harassment and cruel treatment to her. Said case was registered arraying the present complainant, her son and family members as accused persons in the said case. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners because there was an earlier complaint filed, as a counterblast, the complainant filed the present complaint after the lapse of four years. Hence, it is his submission that the complaint itself is belated and it is an after-thought. Learned counsel further made the submission that there is no abetment to commit suicide by the revision petitioners to deceased Kotraiah. Hence, he made the submission that these aspects were not at all considered by the learned Trial Court while considering the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge of the revision petitioners from the case. Hence, learned counsel made the submission that prosecution has not made out a case to proceed against the revision petitioners. Hence, he submitted that it is a case for discharge. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners, in support of his arguments, relied upon the following decisions, by filing a memo to that effect:

"i) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, ;

ii) Vijay Kumar Rastogi Vs. State of Rajasthan,

iii) Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh and Others,

iv) Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Another,

v) Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal, ;

vi) Rikhee Ram Mahilang Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, ."

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, during the course of argument, made the submission regarding delay that in the complaint itself, that has been explained by the complainant. Therefore, only on the basis of alleged delay, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside. Learned counsel made the submission that immediately after coming to know about the death note left by the deceased Kotraiah, the complainant lodged the complaint and handed over the death note to the police. He also made the submission that with regard to the abetment to commit suicide by Kotraiah, even there was another letter which was written by Revision Petitioner No. 4 herein and the hand-writing was also prima-facie ascertained that it is the hand-writing of Revision Petitioner No. 4/Pushpa. Hence, he submitted that complainant has placed the prima-facie material to proceed against the petitioners. It is also the submission that the offence alleged under Section 306 of IPC is a serious offence and it is not a case for discharge.

Perused the grounds urged in the revision petition, decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and the Order passed by the Trial Court on the said application dated 27th July 2014. Relationship of the parties with Revision Petitioner No. 4/Pushpa, daughter-in-law of the deceased is not in dispute. So also Revision Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are the family members is also an admitted fact. Complainant is the wife of the deceased. Looking to the Order passed by the Trial Court, it can be noted that the Trial Court has taken into consideration that there is a death note left by the deceased to show regarding abetment to commit suicide. However, it is the contention of the revision petitioners herein because Revision Petitioner No. 4 filed complaint four months earlier to the alleged incident against the complainant, her son and other family members, that is the main reason to file the present complaint against the revision petitioners as a counter-blast. But perusing the Order of the Trial Court, the Trial Court has taken into consideration the aspect of delay in filing the subsequent complaint by the complainant and it is observed in the said Order regarding delay, the complainant has explained in the complaint itself that after the death of the deceased, for some period, they left the house and again, when they came back to the said house, they noticed the death note left by the deceased and immediately, complaint was filed and the death note was handed over to the police. Therefore, the Trial Court, while disposing of the application seeking discharge of the revision petitioners herein, observed that there is some explanation regarding the delay and it will be considered in detail during the course of the trial. It is also an observation by the Trial Court when prima-facie there is a material placed by the prosecution with regard to death note left by the deceased for the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC, at this stage, it is sufficient to proceed against the accused person.

Perusing the material placed by the complainant and looking to the Order of the Trial Court, it cannot be said that the case of the complainant is totally groundless so as to discharge the revision petitioners from the proceedings. While considering the application seeking discharge, the Court has to consider whether prima-facie case has been made out by the prosecution or not and at that stage, the Court is not supposed to conduct trial to find out whether there is a case made out or not. This yardstick has been applied by the Trial Court while dealing with the application under Section 227 of IPC and prosecution placed prima-facie material to proceed against the revision petitioners. Perusing the material on record, it cannot be said that the case of the prosecution is totally groundless or there is no prima-facie material placed by the prosecution.

I have also perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners herein produced as per the memo. But looking to the facts and circumstances involved in these reported decisions and also the facts and circumstances in the case on hand, they are not exactly one and the same. When the materials were considered by the Trial Court and discretionary Order has been passed by the Trial Court holding that there is prima-facie material and thereby, rejected the application, I am of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the Trial Court nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken in rejecting the application. There are no valid and justifiable grounds to interfere with the Order of the Trial Court.

Hence, Petition is rejected. However, the observation made in the body of the Order shall not influence the Trial Court while conducting trial.