H M HIMACHALAPATHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is filed against an order dated 20.8.2009 in Spl.Case No.175/2006 on the file of II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/accused for the discharge came to be rejected.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the accused in Spl. Case.No.175/2006 on the file of II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. One Nagarathna. S, wife of Satyanarayana.I, filed a complaint against the revision petitioner alleging that on 29.8.2006 at about 10.00 p.m. when she had been to Surya Bakery in order to purchase the condiments, the petitioner after seeing her, all of a sudden caught hold of her hand and asked her to come alongwith him so that he can give any amount of money required by her. He also told her that her husband, who is the chairman of the Panchayath can do anything. By so saying, he caught hold of her. When she resisted the act of the petitioner, he abused her in filthy language by taking her caste, knowing fully well that she belongs to Scheduled caste and he insulted her addressing that anybody can come and sleep with a woman belonging to Scheduled caste , if some amount is spent. When she raised hue and cry, her brother -in -law Anju Kumar came to her rescue. The accused also abused him and assaulted him causing grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Yelahanka. The complainant lodged a complaint before Yelahanka police station in that regard. Crime No.27/2006 came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 of IPC r/w Section 3(1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes, Schedules Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter referred as SC, ST Act , for short). During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of Anju Kumar, Narayanaswamy, Mohan, Leelavathi and others and upon completion of the investigation, filed charge -sheet in Spl.Case.No.175/2006. The accused after receipt of Court summons appeared and filed an application under Section 227 for his discharge. The application was opposed by the Special Public Prosecutor. Upon merits, by order dated 20.8.2009, the application came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application, this revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the records.

(3.) PER -contra, learned HCGP has submitted before me that there is sufficient material to constitute the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504 r/w 3 (1) (xi) of SC, ST Act and taking into consideration the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application for discharge by assigning proper reasons and framed the charges. The trial has also commenced. PW -1 and PW -2 are examined. Hence, he sought to dismiss the revision petition.