Padmapriya ‘suicide’: Setback for former Udupi MLA Raghupathi Bhat as SC sets aside HC order

Udupi, Sept 18: In a major setback to BJP leader and former Udupi MLA Raghupathi Bhat, the Supreme Court has set aside the 2014 order of the Karnataka High Court, which directed a trial court in Udupi to order further investigation against Athul Rao on charges of abetting Padmapriya, wife of Mr. Bhat, to commit suicide, adultery and enticing a married woman. Athul was a close friend of Padmapriya.

A Bench, comprising Justice Dipak Misra (as he then was) and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, in its August 18, 2017 verdict, allowed Athul’s plea and set aside the High Court’s September 16, 2014 order.

Also, the Supreme Court directed the Udupi trial court to conclude within six months the trial of the case against Athul.

The police had filed charge sheet against Athul under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code accusing him of cheating and forgery in connection with his actions of procuring several official documents, including the rent agreement for a flat in New Delhi, where Padmapriya allegedly committed suicide on June 14/15, 2008.

The charges were based on fraudulent information and false representations made by Athul to show that Padmapriya was his lawfully wedded wife. Athul’s claim was that he had only helped Padmapriya, “on her request,” to come out of her marital house.

Not satisfied with the charge sheet filed by the police in August 2008 and the supplementary charge sheet in July 2009, Mr. Bhat had filed a private complaint against Athul before a magistrate court in Udupi making allegations under Sections 497 (adultery), 498 (enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman) and 306 (abetment to suicide). The magistrate court had ordered a separate investigation based on Mr. Bhat’s complaint.

However, Athul moved the High Court challenging the probe ordered on Mr. Bhat’s complaint.

And the High Court quashed the investigation ordered by the magistrate but allowed Mr. Bhat to file an application seeking further investigation before the trial court, where the police had already filed the charge sheet against Athul. The High Court had asked the trial court to consider Mr. Bhat’s plea “in accordance with the law.”

The trial court, after hearing Mr. Bhat’s application, on August 7, 2014 rejected his plea for further investigation while observing that “investigation officer had probed the case from all angles in the context of allegations in the complaint” besides making it clear that additional charges could be framed against Athul if any evidence is revealed during trial.

This made Mr. Bhat to move High Court against rejection of his plea for further probe. The High Court, in its September 16, 2014 order, allowed Mr. Bhat’s petition and directed the trial court to order further investigation.

But Athul moved the Supreme Court, which on February 2, 2015 stayed the High Court’s order related to further investigation.

In its final order, the apex court held that the High Court “committed manifest error in interfering with the discretionary order passed by the trial court, which had rightly, giving proper reasons, rejected Mr. Bhat’s plea for further investigation.