- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28992 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12439 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HARISH S/O SHIVAMURTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT ARENAHALLI HOLAKERE - 577526 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAPPANNAVAR BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BHARAMASAGARA PS BHARAMASAGARA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560009 2. MANJULA D/O NATARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT HAMPANUR VILLAGE BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577519 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.M.MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28992 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2023 SRI.GOPALA KRISHNAMURTHY.C, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 08.06.2023 IN BHARAMASAGARA P.S., CRIME NO.122/2023 IN SPL.C.(SC/ST) NO.25/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.376(2)(n),420,504,506 OF IPC AND U/S.3(1)(r)(s),(w)(i)(ii),3(2)(v) OF SC/ST ACT 1989. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him in Spl.C.(SC/ST)25/2023 on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), (w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC/ST (POA) Act' for short). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28992 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2023 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that he is innocent of the offences and a canard has been stitched against him. As per the prosecution case, prosecutrix was having physical relationship with the petitioner since two years. However, she has not chosen to file complaint at the earliest available opportunity which itself indicates that it is an afterthought. It is a case of consensual sexual relationship between the prosecutrix and petitioner and as such provision of sub-section 376 of IPC are not attracted. The averments that they had prolonged sexual relationship and also the allegations that petitioner used to have sexual intercourse with prosecutrix against her consent and contradiction to one another. When the prosecutrix was aware of the engagement of petitioner, she cannot contend that there was promise by petitioner to marry her. Petitioner had earlier filed Crl.P.No.5315/2023 at the stage of FIR. After filing with the charge sheet, he has filed this petition and prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against him. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28992 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2023 3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.(Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar)1 (ii) Uday Vs. State of Karnataka (Uday)2 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State submit that after the cancellation of his engagement with one Gayathri, petitioner started his relationship with the prosecutrix and with the promise to marry her, he developed physical relationship. He has also taken cash of ₹10 lakhs and gold ornaments, weighing 10 tolas and failed to return them. When requested to marry her, petitioner abused the prosecutrix and her family members referring to their caste. There is prime facie material to proceed against the petitioner and prosecution should be 1 AIR 2019 SC 327 2 Crl.A.No.336/1996 Dt:19.02.2003 :2003(2)ACR 1049(SC) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28992 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2023 given opportunity to prove the allegations in a full fledge trial and pray to dismiss the petition. 5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the decision in Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Anurag Soni)3 6. Heard arguments and perused the record. 7. At the out set, it is relevant to note that petitioner belong to Lingayath community, whereas prosecutrix belongs to Nayak caste, which comes under Schedule Caste. When the complaint was filed, prosecutrix was aged 23 years. As per the complaint averments, she and petitioner were in relationship since two years, which indicates that when their affair started, she was a major. In the complaint itself it stated that when petitioner started visiting the house of prosecutrix, he was already engaged, though she and her family members came to 3 AIR 2019 SC 1857 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28992 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2023 know about it later. It is relevant to note that in the complaint, prosecutrix stated that petitioner informed her mother that in his community, it is difficult to get girls for marriage and he would marry the prosecutrix. However, in the complaint the prosecutrix has alleged that accused forcefully had sexual intercourse with her on many occasion against her will and consent. This is inconsistent with her claim that petitioner had sexual intercourse with her under a promise to marry her and on the basis of such promise, she gave her consent under a misconception. 8. As per the complaint averments, accused used to visit the house of prosecutrix where she was living with her sisters and mother. For a period of 15 days, he stayed in their house and during this period, he committed rape on her forcefully. When her mother insisted on petitioner to marry the prosecutrix, he went on postponing. Under the pretext that his property has come for auction sale, he borrowed ₹5 lakhs in cash and 10 gms - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28992 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2023 of gold and misused it. After 15 days, he took the prosecutrix to Subramanya and stayed in a room for two days and there also he committed rape on her forcefully. After one week, they went to Bengaluru and stayed in the house of her sister. 9. In the complaint, it is stated that sister of the prosecutrix questioned the accused No.1 as to who he is and why he has come with her sister, to which accused No.1 replied that he is the one who is marrying the prosecutrix. 10. If at all the mother of the prosecutrix and other family members were knowing the accused and the fact that he has promised to manage the prosecutors, in all probability, her sister at Bengaluru might also be knowing it. If she questioned petitioner as to who he is and why he has come with the prosecutrix, it belies the claim of the prosecutrix that accused had promised to marry her and this fact was known to her mother and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28992 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2023 other members of the family. Again, after one week when the prosecutrix wanted to go to Bengaluru to work in garment factory and was waiting at the Chitradurga bus stand, accused followed her and both of them stayed in a hotel where once again accused committed sexual intercourse forcefully. 11. When all these facts are taken into account, it clearly indicates that it is a case of consensual relationship between the prosecutrix and accused and the prosecutrix has given consent knowing clearly the consequences of such consent. From the inception, they were knowing that since they belong to different caste, in all probabilities, there would be resistance from the family members of accused. It appears after the prosecutrix and accused fell out, she has chosen to file complaint. 12. In the complaint, prosecutrix has also made allegations against accused Nos.2 to 6, who are the parents, relatives and persons working in Vantikal Math, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28992 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2023 saying that they abused the prosecutrix and her family members as belonging to lower caste and prevented petitioner from marrying her. However, in the charge sheet, they have been given up by holding that the allegation against them are not true. 13. From the material place on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that it is a case of consensual relationship between the prosecutrix and the petitioner and as such the allegations made against the petitioner are not true. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs. State of Mahrashtra and Anr. (Amol Bhagwan Nehul)4, it is not a case of consent under a misconception of fact, but rather a case of adult woman, giving consent for the sexual relationship, knowing the consequences. The conduct of complainant in setting up sexual relationship with petitioner for a prolonged period, clearly indicate that it is a case of consensual relationship, contrary to the allegations that 4 2025 SCC Online SC 1230 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28992 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2023 under misconception of facts, she gave consent for sexual relationship. 14. Allegations that petitioner on multiple occasions, committed rape on her against her consent by promising to marry her, exerting force against her will for committing sexual intercourse and securing her consent on a false promise of marriage are mutually contradictory to each other. It is a case of two consenting adults entering into physical relationship knowing the consequences. For these reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the proceedings to amount abuse of the process of the Court and as such, it is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings in Spl.C.(SC/ST)25/2023 on the file of II - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28992 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2023 Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), (w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is hereby quashed. (iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e- mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48