IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE V ADDL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, D.K. AT PUTTUR

Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 5083/2023

Between:

Anantha Krishna Bhat & Another Petitioner

V/s.

Prathima Bhat & Another Respondents

OBJETIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 PRATHIMA BHAT

It is respectfully submitted as hereunder:

1. That the petitioner at the outset has narrated in the revision petition the facts of
the case as per his convenience and to suit his requirements.

2. Hence, this respondent does reiterate the facts of the case in a nutshell as
hereunder:

The respondent no. 1 had been instructed by the Trustees to be the

caretaker of the trust property of the family trust by the name “Madhava
Vaikunta Bhat Memorial Trust” situated at Uppinangady, which included
the dwelling house built in the trust property by incurring expenditure
from the trust funds to be used and utilised by one Mr. Narendra Bhat, i.e.,
the father of the Petitioner. Accordingly, and admittedly said Mr. Narendra
Bhat was holding and enjoying the same during his life time and was
residing in the said house situated in trust property. However, said Mr.
Narendra Bhat, during his life time itself had executed a Will, wherein the
said house was bequeathed to and in favour of the “Madhava Vaikunta
Bhat Memorial Trust”. Accordingly, after the demise of said Mr. Narendra
Bhat, the revenue documents pertaining to the said house was mutated in
the name of the Trust and the possession of the same also vested in the
Trust and the said mutation was carried out by the revenue officers on the
strength of the said Will. Hence, on 09-03-2023, the trustees of the above-
mentioned trust opined that the lock on the door of the house be changed
and accordingly, it was changed. When the matter stood thus, on coming
to know this aspect, the petitioners on 09-03-2023, at around 8.30 in the
night, the accused persons called on to the complainant’s mobile number
9164906958 from their mobile number 8722529679 and in an enraged
tone claimed that the said house belongs to them and verbally abused the
complainant in unparliamentary words for replacing / changing the lock
and further threatened the complainant with dire consequences to her life
and limb and further threatened her to break her hands and limbs and kill
her.

Owing to above the respondent no. 1 immediately approached the

jurisdictional police who then intimated her to file a written compliant and
hence the respondent no. 1 on 10-03-2023 approached the police with
written compliant and on receipt of the complaint, the police attached to
the jurisdictional Uppinangady Police Station on receipt of the complaint
issued her an NCR vide ref. no. PO1064230600120. However, no action

1|Page
 was taken by the police and hence the respondent no. 1 was constrained to
approach the Superintendent of Police on 13-03-2023 and she lodged the
compliant before the Superintendent of Police of D.K. District. However,
as no action was taken against the petitioners, the respondent no. 1 fearing
to her life and limb approached the court and lodged a private complaint.

3. The trial court on receipt of the said complaint did not mechanically direct the
police to register the FIR or has not mechanically issued summons to the
petitioners as has been falsely and incorrectly stated in the revision petition.
Instead, the lower court / trial court has passed the order of issuance of
summons on the petitioners only after being satisfied and only after the
respondent no. 1 / complainant deposed before the trial court. The order to
register FIR was made only after fully being satisfied of the complainant
making out prima facie case before the lower trial court.

4. That it has to be noted by this hon’ble court that, the complainant in her
complaint has clearly mentioned that she did not want to reproduce the
unparliamentary words used by the petitioners and hence has refrained from
doing so. However, the deposition made by the complainant / this respondent
before the trial court clearly discloses the exact words and phrases of
unparliamentary character and the threat of life made to the complainant / this
respondent.

5. That it has to be noted herein, the trial court has taken cognizance of the matter
only after the complainant / respondent no. 1 deposed before the lower court.
Hence, it is crystal clear that the lower / trial court after being fully satisfied of
itself of the petitioners committing the offence as has been alleged upon has
taken cognizance of the matter and has issued process on to the petitioners /
accused persons.

6. Hence, there has been no iota of illegality or irregularity by the lower / trial
court in issuance of process / summons to the petitioners / accused persons.

7. That the revision petitioners have stated that the lower court has failed to
notice that the complainant has not produced any call record or details and also
has gone to the extent of stating that the accused persons are not using the cell
phone. This Hon’ble Court shall have to make a specific note that the aspect of
producing the call records, call documents et all are not a pre-requisite for the
trial court to take cognizance of the matter but are the issues to be dealt during
the trial. The petitioners by drawing this aspect before the revision court are
trying to create and ambiguity and prejudice if possible before this Hon’ble
Court and have approached before this court with an ulterior motive to
manipulate the lower court / trial court proceedings and escape from the
clutches of law.

8. It is reiterated by this respondent that, it is the petitioners who had the

intention to cause harm and injury to this respondent and wreak vengeance but
not this petitioner as has been falsely stated in the revision petition. The
complainant / respondent no. 1 has approached the lower court seeking justice
and protection to her life and limb from the high handed and atrocious acts of
the petitioners.

9. That the petitioner’s intention to create ambiguity if possible before this court
is writ large as can be seen from the contents of revision petition. The ground
of not stating the list of witness has been depicted as a grave error. This court
has to note that, at the outset, the complaint is about receiving a phone call and
threat through a phone call from the petitioners and not that the petitioners

2|Page
 have threatened this respondent no. 1 in any open place or in the presence of
third parties. Hence, there does not arise of any question of providing list of
witness by the complainant. So, in the current case at hand, non-listing of the
witnesses cannot be considered as a lapse at this stage. It is reiterated, the trial
court has taken cognizance only after the deposition made by the complainant /
respondent no. 1 and on being fully satisfied by the complaint and the
subsequent deposition made by the complainant, the trial court has rightly
taken cognizance and issued process / summons to the petitioners.

10. It is, therefore, based on the above, the respondent no. 1 states that there has
been no illegality or irregularity in the lower / trial court proceedings and
hence, it is prayed that the revision petition may kindly be dismissed and the
proceedings by the lower court be allowed and the trial may be conducted by
the lower trial court in the best interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

04-12-2023
Puttur / Mangalore Adv. for Respondent No. 1

3|Page