CRL.RP/693/2026 of SHRI. B. C. MANJU Vs STATE BY KANAKAPURA POLICE on 9 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1.

2. This revision petition is filed against the order of rejection of discharge application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The allegation made in the complaint filed by the complainant is that he was an employee under Sri Venkatachalapathi from 12 years and looking after the lands situated in Chakanahalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk. That Chandrasekhar was visiting the lands once in a week. That on

HC-KAR

09.06.2023, he had noticed that the said land was found ploughed by some unknown person. That on enquiry, he came to know that on 08.06.2023 at about 10.00 a.m., resident of Baradanahalli Manju had done so. The Police have investigated the complaint and filed the charge-sheet. Now, the case is pending for disposal.

3. It is submitted that witnesses are cited as C.W.1 to C.W.5. C.W.1 is the complainant, C.W.2 and C.W.3 are shown as mahazar witnesses. C.W.4 is the hearsay witness and C.W.5 is the Investigating Officer.

4. The accused sought for discharge on the ground that there is no material on record to show that he ploughed the land and none of the eye witnesses have given any statement that this petitioner had ploughed the land.

5. The learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the application contending that the material collected by the Investigating Officer is sufficient to proceed against the petitioner. He also submits that the Trial

HC-KAR

Court considering the material on record, particularly charge- sheet, rightly dismissed the application.

6. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly taking note of the charge-sheet comes to the conclusion that on perusal of the application filed by the accused and objection filed by the complainant, it is very difficult to the Court to find out the ground to discharge the accused from the alleged offences. This observation is nothing but an omnibus observation and even further observation is made that, on perusal of the charge-sheet, the alleged offences against the accused is determinable by full-fledged trial. But, no reasons are assigned as to what are the materials before the Court to try the matter. But, observation is made that the accused utterly failed to submit before the Court why and how he is not related to the alleged offences and this observation is also erroneous. At the time of discharge, it is not the duty of the accused to place on record whether he is related to the alleged offence or not and the Trial Court has to consider the material on record whether it is a triable case and also even further erroneous observation is made that accused has not

HC-KAR

produced any relevant documents to show that he was not a part of the said alleged offences and the accused cannot produce any document to show that he was not related to the said case. On the other hand, it is the duty of the prosecution to make out a case with regard to involvement of the petitioner and make out a case for trial.

7. On perusal of the complaint itself, the complainant came to know that some unknown persons have ploughed the land. But, this complaint is filed belatedly on 10.07.2023 and according to the complainant, he came to know about the same on 09.06.2023 that this petitioner had ploughed the land. But, delay is also not explained and even in the complaint, he says that neighbours on enquiry revealed that this petitioner had ploughed the land. But, on perusal of the charge-sheet, there is no eye witness to prove the fact that accused himself ploughed the land. But, only complainant, three mahazar witnesses and Investigating Officer are cited in the charge-sheet.

8. When such being the case, the Trial Court committed an error in considering the application filed for discharge and unless, there are materials to proceed against

HC-KAR

the accused, the Trial Court cannot reject the discharge application and there is no such observation in the order that there are materials against the accused to proceed with the case. Under the circumstances, the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the discharge application without assigning any reasons and shifting the burden on the petitioner/accused to produce the material that he has not involved in the offence is an erroneous approach. Hence, the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. requires to be allowed, that too when there is a civil dispute between the parties in O.S.No.234/2023 and there cannot be criminal prosecution when an omnibus allegation is made against the petitioner and question of facing the criminal trial also does not arise. Hence, the order passed by the Trial Court is set aside and application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the accused is discharged from the charges levelled against him. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34