- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11139 CRL.P No. 6886 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6886 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SHIVARAJ NAIK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O IRA NAIK, R/AT: NALINAKOPPA VILLAGE, HOSARU POST, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427, PRESENTLY WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE, KADABA POLICE STATION, KADABA, D.K DISTRICT-574 221. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, KADABA POLICE STATION, D K DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SRI KUNHANNA GOWDA S/O GANGAYYA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BEERANTHADKA HOUSE, KUNTHOOR VILLAGE, PERABE POST, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 285. 3. VICTIM GIRL (CW2) AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, D/O KUNHANNA GOWDA, Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11139 CRL.P No. 6886 of 2024 BIRAMTHADKA HOUSE, KUNTHOOR VILLAGE, PERABE POST, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 285. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R1; MS. DEEPTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW ATHE PETITION AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SPECIAL CASE NO.5042/2021 (CRIME NO.79/2021 OF KADABA POLICE STATION), PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE (SITTING AT PUTTUR) D.K., FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 376(2)(a)(n), 376(c), 506, 313 OF IPC AND U/S 5(a)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv), 5(j)(ii), 5(L) AND 6 OF POCSO ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(a)(n), 376(c), 506, and 313 of the IPC, as well as Sections 5(a)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv), 5(j)(ii), 5(L), and 6 of the POCSO Act, has approached this Court seeking relief. 3. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, a Police Constable at Kadaba Police Station, frequently visited - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11139 CRL.P No. 6886 of 2024 the complainant’s house to serve court summons. During these visits, he developed a friendship with the complainant’s daughter, C.W.2. On 27.04.2021, while the victim was alone at home, the petitioner allegedly visited her house and committed forcible sexual intercourse, resulting in her pregnancy. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner, by promising to marry her, repeatedly committed sexual assault on the victim. Upon discovering the pregnancy, the victim’s parents arranged for an abortion. 4. In her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the victim supported the prosecution’s case. However, before the Trial Court, when examined as P.W.1, she turned hostile. The prosecution cross-examined her extensively, but nothing substantial emerged to support the allegations against the petitioner. Similarly, the complainant—the victim’s father—was examined as P.W.2 but also turned hostile, and no incriminating material was elicited during his cross-examination. 5. The petitioner was subjected to a departmental inquiry, during which the victim, her father, and her mother were examined. They all denied that the petitioner had committed any forcible sexual assault. The inquiry officer, after considering their statements, submitted a report concluding that the charges against the petitioner were not proven. This report was subsequently accepted, and the petitioner was exonerated on merits. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11139 CRL.P No. 6886 of 2024 6. At the time of the alleged incident, the victim was 17 years and 2 months old; she is now approximately 21 years old. Neither the victim nor her parents have supported the prosecution’s case, either before the Trial Court or in the departmental inquiry. Although medical evidence suggests that the victim’s hymen was ruptured, no conclusive evidence establishes that this was due to forcible sexual assault by the petitioner. 7. In the absence of material evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner, the continuation of criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 9. The impugned proceedings in Special Case No.5042/2021 on the file of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mangalore, (Sitting at Puttur), D.K., insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 152