- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13641 CRL.P No. 12133 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12133 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SATISH, S/O LATE SHASHIKANTH SHATTAGAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC PVT SERVICE R/O MURALAPUR ROAD, MUNDARAGI TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT -582101. 2. SRI RAMU SHETTAGAR, S/O BANDEPPA, MAJOR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O BELAMAGI VILLAGE, ALAND TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT – 585302. 3. SRI PRAVEEN SHETTEGAR, S/O SUBANNA SHATTAGAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O BELAMAGI VILLAGE, ALAND TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT – 585302. 4. SRI SANTOSH SHETAGAR, S/O LATE SHASHIKANT SHEETGAR, AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O BELAMAGI VILLAGE, ALAND TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT – 585302. 5. SRI RAMESH, S/O BABU RAO BIRADAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O BELAMAGI VILLAGE, ALAND TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT – 585302. 6. MAHANANDA D/O LATE SHASHIKANT SHATTAGAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13641 CRL.P No. 12133 of 2024 R/O BELAMAGI VILLAGE, ALAND TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT – 585302. 7. SHILPA ARASURU, S/O LATE SHASHIKANTHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O SHOWN AS BELAMAGI VILLAGE ALAND TALUK RESIDING AT OPP KGP BANK, NEW RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, BRAHMPURA, KALABURAGI – 585101. 8. CHIRANJEEVI VISHWAKARAMA, S/O GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BELAMAGI VILLAGE, HUKKIHAL, GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DIST-583227. 9. RAVI, S/O GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O BELAMGI VILLAGE ALAND TALUK ACTUAL RESIDENT OF BRAHMANARA BIDI CHANNAGITI, SANTEBENNUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST – 577001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE -561208, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01 2. SMT VASANTHI, D/O BASAVARAJA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.89/2B, BOMMALINGESHWAR MATH, HAGEDIBBI CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1, SRI MOHAN KUMAR H.G, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13641 CRL.P No. 12133 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SC NO.121/2020 INITIATED FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 376, 420, 417, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I DAVANAGERE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners/accused are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 417, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that Accused No.1 induced the de facto complainant to have sexual intercourse by promising to marry her, and thereafter breached that promise. The other accused, who are relatives of Accused No.1, abused her and threatened her with dire consequences. 3. The parties are present before this Court and have filed a joint memo stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves. In terms of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13641 CRL.P No. 12133 of 2024 settlement, Respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw all allegations against the petitioners and has no objection to the quashing of the impugned proceedings. 4. The joint memo is placed on record. 5. Admittedly, Accused No.1 and the de facto complainant were allegedly in a relationship from 05.10.2015 to 17.12.2019. A perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that Accused No.1 induced Respondent No.2 to have sexual intercourse by promising to marry. However, there is no material evidence to substantiate that Accused No.1 fraudulently obtained the consent of the de facto complainant at the time of inception. Furthermore, Respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw the allegations against the petitioners. 6. Although the offences alleged are cognizable and non-compoundable, given that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and Respondent No.2 has no objection to quashing the impugned proceedings, it would be futile to subject the petitioners to trial since the probability of conviction is remote and bleak in view of the settlement. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13641 CRL.P No. 12133 of 2024 7. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceeding in SC.No.121/2020 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Davanagere, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 156