<p>The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a plea by Swami Raghaveshwara Bharathi for a permission to furnish some materials before the Karnataka High Court in deciding a matter arising out of his discharge in an alleged rape case.</p>.<p>He had challenged the Karnataka High Court's verdict, that had rejected his petition for relying upon additional documents.</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose saw no ground to interfere with the high court's judgement of September 11, 2018.</p>.<p>Senior advocate K V Viswanathan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that he has already been discharged. But the petitioner wanted some documents to be produced in the proceedings against the discharge initiated by the complainant as well as the prosecution otherwise, he would be prejudiced, the counsel said.</p>.<p>The bench, however, said why these documents should be looked into, when those were not relied upon by the prosecution. The court said it was not inclined to enlarge the scope of the high court's revision jurisdiction.</p>.<p>On this, the petitioner preferred to withdraw his petition, which was allowed by the court.</p>.<p>An FIR was lodged against the petitioner on August 26, 2014 on a complaint made by a woman, who claimed to be associated with him as the 'Ram Katha singer'. The trial court subsequently discharged the petitioner.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a plea by Swami Raghaveshwara Bharathi for a permission to furnish some materials before the Karnataka High Court in deciding a matter arising out of his discharge in an alleged rape case.</p>.<p>He had challenged the Karnataka High Court's verdict, that had rejected his petition for relying upon additional documents.</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose saw no ground to interfere with the high court's judgement of September 11, 2018.</p>.<p>Senior advocate K V Viswanathan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that he has already been discharged. But the petitioner wanted some documents to be produced in the proceedings against the discharge initiated by the complainant as well as the prosecution otherwise, he would be prejudiced, the counsel said.</p>.<p>The bench, however, said why these documents should be looked into, when those were not relied upon by the prosecution. The court said it was not inclined to enlarge the scope of the high court's revision jurisdiction.</p>.<p>On this, the petitioner preferred to withdraw his petition, which was allowed by the court.</p>.<p>An FIR was lodged against the petitioner on August 26, 2014 on a complaint made by a woman, who claimed to be associated with him as the 'Ram Katha singer'. The trial court subsequently discharged the petitioner.</p>
