PARUBAI Vs. RAGHAVENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Ss. 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took the aforesaid offences against the accused. Taking exception of the same, this revision petition is filed.

(2.) The accused filed an application under Sec. 227 of Cr.PC to discharge the accused from the alleged offences. The learned Magistrate allowed the application in part discharging the accused Nos.5 to 7 from the alleged charges, however, dismissed the application insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 4 and 8 to 10. Being aggrieved, the accused Nos.1 to 4 and 8 to 10 filed Crl.RP No.31/2016 under Sec. 397 of Cr.PC before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order allowed the application and discharged the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 to 10 for the aforesaid offences in CC No.1974/2014. Being aggrieved, the defacto complainant is before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner - defacto complainant would submit that the charge sheet material discloses the commission of offences by the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 to 10 and the learned Sessions Judge instead of dismissing the revision petition since there was a prima facie case to proceed against the accused has passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in law.