SRI NITHIN YENEKAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP. Perused the records.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contends that the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) lodged first information report making allegations of the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 307 , 326(a) , 354 , 506 , 323 , 511 and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the first information report and the statement made by the complainant under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. discloses that there was no attempt of murder of the complainant and there was no pouring of acid on her. This aspect has not been considered by the Committal Court, and without looking into the gravity of the offences, committed the case before the Court of Sessions.

(3.) Mere committal of the case does not mean to say that the Sessions Judge has to frame the charges on the basis of the operative portion of the charge sheet papers, but the Court has to go through the entire materials on record, find out the allegations attracting relevant provisions and then has to the proceed against the accused. Therefore, I am of the opinion, the petitioner can make an application before the learned Sessions Judge to discharge him from the particular offence as noted by the police and then argue for the discharge for the other offences. In that eventuality, the learned Sessions Judge has to apply his mind and look into the charge sheet papers and find out whether the charges can be framed against the petitioner for the offences alleged by the police or for any other offences.