UMESH AND ORS. Vs. NAGARATHNAMMA H.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) 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:

(3.) 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.