Shri. Anto Vimal Rathraj L. and Others vs State of Karnataka and Kum. K. Padmapriya

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondent appearing in person remains absent. It is the case of the petitioners that the first respondent police have filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC for brevity), on the complaint by the second respondent who has alleged that the petitioners came along in a Tata Sumo vehicle and accosted her while she was walking near the Chowdeshwari Bus stand to visit her friend and they had assaulted her with a weapon, club, a knife and a stone. It was further alleged that she was married to the first petitioner in the year 2007 which is clearly a false statement, since the second respondent had filed a claim under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Domestic Violence Act'' for brevity) and an ex-parte order having been passed directing the first petitioner herein to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- and also provide shelter in his house, the same has been contested.

In the meanwhile, Petitioner No. 1 had also filed a suit for declaration that he was not married to Respondent No. 2 and that the petition has resulted in a judgment and decree in his favour. Insofar as the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act was concerned, the same was not prosecuted as it came to light that the second respondent was placing reliance on a forged Marriage Certificate to claim that she was the wife of the first petitioner. Therefore, in the above background it is contended that the second respondent was making a dubious claim of marriage with the first petitioner in order to cause harassment and hardship to his family members, who are the other petitioners. The case being foisted against the petitioners, the petitioners had sought for discharge before the trial court. That application was considered at length and the court below has addressed the several infirmities that were sought to be highlighted as regards the complaint being baseless and that the petitioners being entitled to a discharge, has opined that even though two witnesses have been cited in support of the complainant, they had made statements which were contradictory to the allegations in the complaint and the spot mahazar which was drawn up also did not indicate the sign of any such offence having been committed. The court below has concluded that it is a settled legal position that at a stage where the court is to frame charges, it would look into material produced by the prosecution only to see whether there was sufficient material on record to proceed with the trial and hence, has concluded that the documents produced by the accused cannot be looked into and has discharged Accused Nos. 7 and 8 since there were no allegations made against the said accused, but has held that the petitioners herein would have to stand trial and has rejected their application. It is in that background that the present petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioners while attacking the bonafides of Respondent No. 2, points out that it has been established beyond doubt that she was not the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner No. 1 and the entire proceedings initiated by her including the criminal proceedings herein were foisted with ulterior motives and therefore, the petitioners sought to be discharged. On an examination of the material on record, on the face of it, would submit that the court below having refused to look into the documents which would have clearly absolved the petitioners of any involvement of any such alleged incident, results in grave injustice and seeks to place reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and Others, where the Apex Court has observed that it is not an absolute proposition that under no circumstances the court can look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges, though this should be done in very rare cases, i.e., where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted. The court would be justified in looking into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges, if such material convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd, preposterous or concocted. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that this was an ideal case where such an exercise ought to have been carried by the trial court which would have enabled the petitioners to have been discharged. The learned counsel though has made out a strong case to indicate that there is want of bona fides on the part of Respondent No. 2, the question whether she is the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner No. 1 or not, is purely incidental. The allegation is of offences punishable under the provisions of the IPC and the focus of the court below is on the allegations made in that regard. Therefore, the court below having formed an opinion that there was adequate material to proceed with the trial and having dismissed the application seeking discharge, may not be irregular or illegal The refusal of the court below to look into the documents produced by the accused at the time of framing of charge cannot also be said to be in violation of law. The Apex Court has only declared that it is possible that in a rare case, this exercise may also be undertaken by the trial court. That by itself may not make every single case a rare case and certainly not the present case on hand. Therefore, the order of the court below having been tested in revision and the revisional court also having affirmed the order passed by the trial court, this court does not find any room for interference and accordingly, the petition is rejected.