Justice G Narendar while allowing a petition filed by Santosh Kumar, set aside an order passed by lower court rejecting a discharge plea filed by him stated: “The reading of the said order would reflect non-application of mind by the learned JMFC.”
One Santosh Kumar had approached the High Court challenging the orders passed by JMFC and Revisional Courts against him under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 36 of IPC and Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 under Dowry Prohibition Act.
The court of JMFC while rejecting the plea observed generally stating that there was sufficient material of harassment by the respondent on perusal of the entire material on record and also that stage presence of the accused cannot be decided just by review of the material on record.
Karnataka High Court held:
In the present case, there has been no demonstration of a prima facie case of non-application of mind in the orders passed by the JMFC or Revisional Courts.
The bench relied on the ruling of the Apex Court in Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish v. State of Maharashtra and stated judicial mind was absent in the exercise rendered in the disposal of a petition for discharge. Furthermore, it was observed that the matter needs to be reconsidered and remitted back to the JMFC with an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
It was held that “it is incumbent on the courts to state reasons with reference to the material on record on which reliance is placed to formulate an opinion to reject the application for discharge.”