D A PANDURANGA SHET Vs. SAGAR TOWN POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TIME prayed for by the learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2 is refused, on the ground that this Court has already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners on the last date of hearing, so also the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1.

(2.) THIS revision petition is filed by the petitioners 1 to 4 to set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga dated 19/3/2003 in Crl. R. P. 4/2002 reversing the order of discharge dated 16/10/2001 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and j. M. F. C. Sagar in C. C. No. 270/2000.

(3.) ASSAILING the said order, the revision petitioners 1 to 4 have come up with this revision petition mainly on the ground that the sessions Judge has failed to take note of the complaint lodged by smt. Vinoda as barred by limitation. As such the complaint was filed after a lapse of six years of marriage. So also the learned Session judge failed to take note that petitioners-2 and 3 are aged persons and complainant herself has deserted the petitioners with an intention to harass them. Even though Respondent No. 2 has not made out any prima facie case against the revision petitioners, she filed a false complaint after a lapse of six years, which amounts to abuse of process of law and the learned Sessions Judge has failed to take note of this fact and reversed the order of discharge passed by the trial Court which is illegal. Even though the complaint filed for the offences punishable under Secs. 306,489-A, 323,506 r/w Sec. 34 of Indian penal Code and Secs. 3 and 4 of D. P. Act, charge sheet came to be filed by the investigating agency for the offences punishable under sec. 498-A and Secs. 3 and 4 of D. P. Act. The complaint filed by respondent No. 2 is not maintainable. Hence this revision petition.