RAVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused 1 to 7 in S.C. No. 737/2009 on the file of FTC-XV, Bangalore, have come up in this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 9.11.2009 rejecting their prayer for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Admittedly, petitioners 1 to 7 are charged with an offence, which is punishable under Section 304-B r/w 34 I.P.C. pursuant to crime registered in F.I.R. No. 188/2008 with Jeevanabima Nagar Police within the jurisdiction of X ACMM, Bangalore. When said FIR was committed to Sessions Court, the court below has proceeded to frame charges holding that prima facie there is sufficient material regarding the possibility of an offence being committed by accused 1 to 7 punishable under Section 304-B r/w 34 of I.P.C., which is challenged by accused 1 to 7 in this proceeding.

(3.) Sri Chandramouli, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, would submit that there is a patent error on the part of Sessions Judge in not giving proper reasons for accepting that there is a triable case as against accused 1 to 7 while framing the charges. It is his case that when the matter was heard for framing of charges, he relied on several judgments and also referred to documents, which were filed by prosecution in to the Court to demonstrate that a triable offence is not made out as against accused 1 to 7, which is not properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge, which has resulted in charges being framed erroneously against all the accused. Learned Counsel would submit, even assuming that, the Court below has come to a conclusion with the available material in framing the charges against accused 1 to 3, there should be some semblance of acceptable reason for framing the charges in the said order, whereas a serious error is committed in framing charges against accused 4 to 7 also. It is also his submission that though there is no material to substantiate offence as against all the accused, at the most the Court could have restricted itself to accused 1 to 3, for the reason that, available material may indicate the involvement of accused 1 to 3, but not against all the accused. It is also his grievance that no reason is assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for framing charges.