- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14763 CRL.RP No. 1012 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1012 OF 2018 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE, BENGALURU, REP. BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-1 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. WAHEEDA, HCGP) AND: SRINIVASA @ KAMBISEENA S/O HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.277, 21ST CROSS, 2ND STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU-78 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. J. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAN KUMAR D, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2018, PASSED BY THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-54) IN S.C.NO.911/2017. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14763 CRL.RP No. 1012 of 2018 ORAL ORDER The State has preferred this revision petition against the order passed in S.C.No.911/2017 dated 20.02.2018 by the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-54) (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the discharge application field by the respondent/accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and thereby discharged the respondent/accused in Crime No.243/2017 and S.C.No.911/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 376 and 506 of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that: The victim has lodged a complaint before the respondent Police alleging that her husband was working under the accused as Coolie. Further, her husband approached the accused for financial assistance to build a separate residence. Against this backdrop, the accused visited the house of the complainant on 10.05.2017 at about 12-00 p.m., and forcibly entered the house and committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter threatened her not to disclose the same to anybody. However, after the incident, the complainant and her husband lodged the complaint against the accused on the next day i.e., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14763 CRL.RP No. 1012 of 2018 on 11.05.2017. On the strength of the complaint, the Subramanyapura Police registered a case in Crime No.243/2017 on 11.05.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 376 and 506 of IPC against the respondent/accused. After registering FIR, the investigation officer laid a charge sheet against the accused for the aforementioned offences. 3. On committal of the case before the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the respondent/accused and took cognizance of the offences. Following this, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C to discharge the respondent/accused from the aforementioned offences. 4. Learned Sessions Judge on hearing the counsel for the respondent/accused and the learned PP, allowed the application filed by the respondent/accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C and discharged him for the aforementioned offences. The said order is challenged by the respondent-State in this revision petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14763 CRL.RP No. 1012 of 2018 5. I have heard the learned HCGP Smt. Waheeda, for the petitioner/State and Sri J.Naveen, learned counsel for Sri.Mohan Kumar D., learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that the learned Sessions Judge has erred while discharging the accused by allowing the application without appreciating the complaint, statements and other material witnesses placed by the prosecution in right perspective. She contended that charge sheet has been laid against the accused and there are as many as 15 witnesses arrayed in the said charge sheet, who have stated against the accused. In such circumstance, without a detail trial learned Sessions Judge ought not to have allowed the application filed by the accused and discharged him for the alleged offences. Accordingly, she prays to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused supported the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge after meticulously examining the entire statements placed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14763 CRL.RP No. 1012 of 2018 before her, passed a well reasoned order which do not call for any interference by this Court. He further submitted that, the complaint by the victim and the statements of other witnesses prima facie do not make out a case against the accused/respondent. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 8. On perusal of the comprehensive records placed before me, it could be gathered that it is the admitted case of the complainant that the complainant herself and the accused known to each other since her husband working under the accused and they are friends. Further it is her case that on 10.05.2017 at about 12.00 p.m., the accused visited her house and consummated with her. However, she did not disclose the said aspect to the police till next day i.e., on 11.05.2017. The said inordinate delay in lodging the complaint is not adequately explained by the complainant. Nevertheless, the police taken her to KIMS hospital on the same day on 11.05.2017 for medical examination, after examining her, the doctor clearly opined that "there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse". It is also relevant note that a requisition was submitted by the Investigation Officer to the jurisdictional Magistrate to record - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14763 CRL.RP No. 1012 of 2018 the statement of victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. However, in spite of granting sufficient opportunity, the complainant/victim remained absent before the learned Magistrate to give her statement. On perusal of the statements of other witnesses also there arise a doubt in the case projected by the complainant in respect of the forcible consummation by the accused as alleged by the complainant. 9. It is the specific case of the accused that there is some misunderstanding between the complainant's husband and the accused in respect of payment since the complainant's husband working under him. In order to take revenge against him, a false complaint has been lodged by the complainant at the instance of her husband. Admittedly the victim being a major and married women and failed to disclose the alleged act of the accused either to police or to her husband from 12.00 noon to next day morning, the learned Sessions Judge while allowing the discharge application has meticulously examined the same and other materials placed by the prosecution and rightly held that the prosecution failed to make out the prima facie case against the accused to frame charge against him and accordingly, discharged him from the aforementioned offences. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14763 CRL.RP No. 1012 of 2018 10. In that view of the matter, the revision lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23