Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 40652 (KAR)

KISHORE M v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/14213/2025 · 2025-11-26

Mohammad Nawaz

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48903 CRL.P No. 14213 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14213 OF 2025 BETWEEN: KISHORE M S/O SRI MUNIRAJU B.K. AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS MARALUBAGILU ROAD, PARVATHAPURA, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL, KARNATAKA- 562110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANINDITA CHAKRABOTY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEVANAHALLI P.S. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE -562110. 2. RADHA W/O SRI RAMESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A 15, VAIBHAV, ENCLAVE LAYOUT, PUTTAPPANAGUDIBEEDI ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48903 CRL.P No. 14213 of 2025 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. APP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FIR, CHARGE SHEET IN CR NO.70/2025 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE HONBLE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN CONNECTION WITH SPL.C NO.618/2025 OF DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 12 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 7(2) OF THE BNSS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking to quash the FIR/complaint, charge sheet and the entire proceedings pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in Special Case No.618/2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48903 CRL.P No. 14213 of 2025 2. The charge sheet is filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 75(2) of BNS and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even according to the history furnished before the Doctor and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, the petitioner and the victim were known to each other for the last several years and there was a love affair, however, after an inordinate delay, a false complaint has been lodged making baseless allegations. It is further contented that the medical report clearly demonstrates that there was absolutely no sexual assault on the victim and the complaint is lodged only to ruin the career of the petitioner, a student, aged 18 years. Accordingly, sought to quash the proceedings. 4. Learned Addl. SPP has contented that as per school records, the date of birth of the victim is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48903 CRL.P No. 14213 of 2025 22.02.2008 and therefore, she was a minor aged below 18 years, at the time of commission of offence. He contended that even the birth certificate of the victim confirm her date of birth, and in view of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner. 5. It is the case of prosecution that the petitioner by inducing the minor victim developed a friendship with her and on 13.05.2025 when she was alone in her house, at about 07.30 p.m., took her to the bedroom and hugged and kissed her in spite of her resistance and touched her breasts and thereby committed the offences alleged. 6. It is no doubt true, as per history furnished to the Doctor as well as in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, victim and the petitioner were known to each other for about 4 years and they were in love. However, the statement of the victim to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48903 CRL.P No. 14213 of 2025 the effect that the accused committing sexual assault on her cannot be ignored at this stage. As per prosecution the date of birth of the victim is 22.02.2008. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 13.05.2025 and therefore, the victim was a minor aged below 18 years. There are no grounds to quash the charge sheet. Hence, the petition is dismissed. I.A. No.1/2025, I.A.No.2/2025 & I.A.No.3/2025 are disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE KLY CT: JL