- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11337 CRL.P No. 4746 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4746 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. SYED SHAMSHIR BASHA, S/O SYED SABAHAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A C/O TEJAS (PADMAVATHI LOKESH), 3RD FLOOR, 24TH CROSS MARUTHI NAGAR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.M. SRINIVASAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. S. VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO. 144, CHANDRAPPA NILAYA 2ND MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM, BENGALURU CITY - 570 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. K.M. ARCHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1094/2023 REGISTERED BY THE YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(n), 420 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11337 CRL.P No. 4746 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused, who is facing a trial for the offenses punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 420 of the IPC is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner/accused and survivor were working in a lab and therefore became acquainted with each other and the petitioner/accused by promising to marry, had committed forcible sexual intercourse with the survivor on 17.03.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused had breached the promise to marry. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/accused is married and having children and therefore, the allegation that the petitioner induced the survivor to have sexual intercourse by promising her to marry is without any substance. He further submitted that there is no substantial evidence to substantiate that the consent of the survivor was obtained fraudulently at the time of inception, so as to constitute the commission of offences alleged against the petitioner. 4. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the charge-sheet material coupled with the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11337 CRL.P No. 4746 of 2024 allegation made in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. clearly establishes that consent of the survivor was obtained fraudulently at the time of inception and therefore, the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences. She further submitted that the veracity of the allegation can be considered at the time of trial and cannot be gone into in this petition and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned HCGP for the State would reiterate the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. The arguments of the learned counsels of the parties have been duly considered. 7. The petitioner and the survivor were allegedly in a relationship from 07.04.2021 to 31.08.2022. The petitioner admitted about the sexual intercourse with the survivor on one occasion, i.e., 17.03.2021. The survivor also admits that the petitioner was married and having children. The charge sheet material does not disclose that the consent of the survivor was obtained fraudulently at the time of inception, inducing the survivor to have sexual intercourse by promising her to marry. Mere breach of a promise to marry does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of the offences as alleged against the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11337 CRL.P No. 4746 of 2024 8. The Apex Court in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1405 ruled that even assuming that all the allegations in the FIR were correct for the purpose of considering the application for quashing under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., no offence could be established where it was found that the promise to marry made to the complainant, at the stage of inception was fraudulent. On the contrary, where it would appear from the contents of the FIR that there is subsequent refusal on the part of the petitioner to marry respondent No.2, which gives rise to the registration of the impugned FIR, the same was a fit case to be quashed by invoking inherent powers of the Court. 9. Therefore, in the light of given principles established by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, I am of the considered view that in the absence of any material to show that the consent of respondent No.2 was obtained fraudulently at the time of inception, any further continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11337 CRL.P No. 4746 of 2024 ii. The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.1094/2023 pending on the file of LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore insofar it relates to the petitioner/accused is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE hdk List No.: 1 Sl No.: 100 CT: BHK