- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5294 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SACHIN C R SO RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577601. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S G RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALEBENNUR POLICE STATION, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. MAMTHAZ BEGM D/O MOULALI SAB, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577601. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. DINESH KUMAR K RAO, ADVOCATE AND SRI. ESHWARA H H., ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.43/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FTSC I DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 417, 376(2)(n), 313 AND 506 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in SC.No.43/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 417, 376(2)(n), 313 and 506 of IPC. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused developed a relationship with respondent No.2/complainant having exchanged phone numbers. The accused, who is the neighbour of the complainant on 14.8.2019 at about 11.00 p.m. forcibly had sexual intercourse and when the complainant questioned, accused falsely assured that he would marry her. The victim was further allured by the accused and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 again on 2.11.2021 at about 11.00 a.m. under the pretext of false promise to marry had physical relationship and in view of the same, the victim was pregnant which was aborted later. The victim alleging that the accused forcibly maintained relationship under the pretext of false marriage, lodged the complaint with the jurisdictional police station, which led to registration of crime in Crime No.0284/2023. The investigating officer has filed the final report. 3. Petitioner's counsel citing the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.9257/2024 and referring to the allegations in the complaint would point out that petitioner and respondent No.2 are adults, respondent No.2 is a graduate aged 34 years who had a long standing relationship and physical relationship was consensual and therefore, the alleged act does not fall under the ambit of Section 375 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in absence of ingredients of sexual relationship induced by misconception of facts, the proceedings if allowed to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 continue amounts to abuse of process and therefore, seeks quashing of the proceedings. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP justifying the filing of the charge sheet would point out that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused and therefore, no indulgence is warranted. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant arguing in the same vein submits that the statement of the victim carries credibility and therefore, the allegations in the complaint does constitute a prima facie case to proceed against the accused and therefore, no indulgence is warranted. 6. Heard the learned counsel on record and perused the charge sheet materials. 7. Before this Court delves into the matter, this Court deems it fit to extract the relevant portion of the complaint, which reads as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 "………………ಾನು .ಎ ವೆಗೂ ಾಾಸವನು ಾ, ಮೆಯ ೆಲಸ ಾೊಂರುೇೆ. ನನ ಅಕ! ರ"#ಾ $ೇಗಂ ಇವರು ಾ&ೆ$ೆನೂರು ನಗರದರುವ ()* +,-. /ಲಯದ /ಲಯ 0ಾಲಕಾ1 ಕತ3ವ /ವ34ಸು5ರುಾೆ. ನನ ಮೆಯ ಎದು78ೆ ಇರುವ ನಮ9 8ಾ-ಮದ ಾಮಪ; ರವರ ಮಗಾದ ಸ<= ಈತನು ನನ8ೆ ಪ7ಚಯದು@, ಈತನು ನನ A$ೈC - 9108383706 ನಂಬE ನು ೇ½ ಪFೆದುೊಂದ@ನು. ನಂತರ Gನಗಳ ಅಂದೆ 2019 ೇ Iಾನ ಸ<= ಈತನು ತನ A$ೈC ನಂಬE 8970913133 ಮೂಲಕ ನನ8ೆ ಪ-5 Gನ ಗುJ ಾ/ಂ3K, ಊಟ DAiÀiÁÛ, ಗುJ ೈN ಅಂಾ ಾಮ3C +IೆO ಗಳನು ಕಳP4ಸು5ದು@, ಅದೆ! ಾನು ಪ-5 ಉತರವನು /ೕಡು5 ೆ@ನು. ನಂತರ Gನಗಳ ಾC ಾ ನೊಂG8ೆ ಆ5TಯUಾ1 ಾಾಾಡು5ದ@ನು. ಒಂದು 5ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ಸ<= ಈತನು ನನ8ೆ ಾನು /ನನು W-ೕ5ಸುೇೆ ಎಂದ ಪ-(ೕ) ಾದನು. ಾನು ಇದೆ! ಒಪ;ಲ ಸ<= ಈತನು ನನ8ೆ ತುಂ$ಾ ನಂ5 ಾಡುಾ ನನನು ¥ÀÄಸುXಾYZ ನಂZದನು. ಆಗ ಾನು ಆತ/8ೆ ನಮ9 ಧಮ3 $ೇೆ, ಾನು /ನ1ಂತ 04 ವಷ3 ೊಡ^ವಳP CAಾ ಏµÀÄÖ, ಬುG`Uಾದ aೇbದರು ಆತನು ಾತು ೇಳಲ, ಆಗ ಸ<= ಈತನು ನನ8ೆ ನಮ9 /ಮ9 ಮೆಯವರನು ಒW;Z ಮದುUೆ#ಾಗುೇೆ ಅಂಾ aೇb ಪcಸುXಾYZದನು. ಆಗ ಾನು ಆತನ W-ೕ5ಯನು ಒW;ೊಂFೆನು. ನಂತರದ Gನಗಳ ಆತನು ನೊಂG8ೆ ಪ-5 Gನ +¸ÉO ಮತು dೕ= ಾC ಾ ಾಾಾಡು5ದ@ನು. Gಾಂಕ:- 14-08-2019 ರಂದು ಾ5- 11-00 ಗಂeೆ ಸಮಯದ ಾನು /ನ fೊೆ ಾಾಡ$ೇಕು ನಮ9 ಮೆಯ ಹ5ರ $ಾ ಅಂಾ aೇb ನನನು ಪcಸುXಾYZ ಅವರ ಮೆ8ೆ ಕೆYZೊಂಡು ನನ8ೆ ಬಲವಂತUಾ1 Xೈಂ1ಕUಾ1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 ಸಹಕ7ಸುವಂೆ WೕZ, ನೊಂG8ೆ Xೈಂ1ಕ ಸಂಪಕ3 ಾದನು. ನಂತರ Gನಗಳ ಾನು ಮೆಯ ಒW;Z ಮದುUೆ#ಾಗು ಅಂಾ aೇbದೆ! Gಾಂಕ:-02-11-2021 ರಂದು ಾ5- 11-00 ಗಂeೆ ಸಮಯದ, ನಮ9 ಮೆ8ೆ ಬಂದು ಾನು Xೈಂ1ಕUಾ1 ಸಹಕ7ಸ ಅನುವ ಉ ೆ@ೕಶGಂದ ನನನು ನಂಸಲು ಒಂದು ಅ7iನ ೊಂಬು ಕ,*ದ ಾರವನು ನನ ೊರb8ೆ ಕ,*ದನು. ಆಗ ಾನು ಆತನನು ನಂ ೆನು. ನಂತರ Gನಗಳ ಸ<= ಈತನು ಆ8ಾಗ ನಮ9 ಮೆ8ೆ ಬಂದು ನೊಂG8ೆ Xೈಂ1ಕ ಸಂಪಕ3ವನು ಾಡು5ದ@ನು. ಾವc Xೈಂ1ಕ ಸಂಪಕ3 ಾದ@7ಂದ ಾನು 2022 ೇ Iಾನ +ೕ 5ಂಗಳನ ಗj3k#ಾ1ದು@, ಈ lಾರವನು ಸ<= 8ೆ 5bZ ಾಗ ಈಗXೇ $ೇಡ ಮುಂGನ Gನಗಳ ನಮ9 ಮೆಯ /ಮ9 ಮೆಯ ಒW;Iೋಣ ಅಂಾ aೇb "Unwanted" ಗಭ30ಾತದ ಾೆ-ಯನು ತಂದು ಅ$ಾಷ= ಾZದನು. ನಂತರ Gನಗಳ ಾನು $ೇಡ ಅಂದರು ನಮ9 ಮೆ8ೆ ಆ8ಾಗ ಬಂದು ನೊಂG8ೆ Xೈಂ1ಕ ಸಂಪಕ3 ಾಡು5ದ@ನು. ಅದರಂೆ Gಾಂಕ:-09-06- 2023 ರಂದು ಾನು ಪcನಃ ಗjೕ3k#ಾ1ರುವ ಷಯವನು ಸ<= 8ೆ 5bZ ೆ ಆಗ ಸ<= ಅ ೇ 7ೕ5#ಾ1 "Unwanted" ಗಭ30ಾತದ ಾೆ-ಗಳನು ೊಟು* ಅ$ಾಷ= ಾZದನು. ಇ5ೕ<8ೆ ಾನು ಸ<= ನನನು /ಮ9 ಮೆ8ೆ ಕೆದುೊಂಡು aೋಗು ಅಂಾ aೇbದೆ! ಾನು /ನನು #ಾೇ ಕೆದುೊಂಡು aೋಗ$ೇಕು ಾನು ಕೆದು ೊಂಡು aೋಗುವcGಲ ಅಂಾ 5bZದ. /ೕನು ನನನು ಮದುUೆ#ಾ1G@ೕ#ಾ ಅಂಾ aೇಳದPÉÌ ಾನು ºÉÃbದPÉÌ /ೕನು ನನ fೊೆ ೈ4ಕ ಸಂಪಕ3 aೊಂದ ಎಂದು ನಂಸಲು ಅ7iನ ೊಂರುವ ಾರ ಕ,*ದೆ ಅಂಾ 5bZದನು. ಸ<= ಈತ£ÀÄ ನನನು ಪcಸುXಾYZ ನಂZ, ನನ fೊೆ ಬಲವಂತUಾ1 ¯ÉÊAVPÀ ಸಂಪಕ3ವನು ಾ, ಾನು ನಂಬ° CAvÀ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 Cj²£À ೊಂನ ಾರವನು ಾb ಕ,*, ನನ fೊೆ /ರಂತರUಾ1 ¯ÉÊAVPÀ ಸಂಪಕ3 ಾ ನನ8ೆ 02 $ಾ7 ಗಭ3ವ5ಯಾV¹ 02 $ಾ7 Unwanted" ಗಭ3¥Áತದ ಾೆ-ಗಳನು ನುಂ1Z ಆ$ಾಷ= ಾZದ®èzÉà ನನ "ೕವನವನು aಾಳP ಾರುವ ಸ<= ರವರ +ೕXೆ ಾನೂನು 7ೕ5ಯ ಕ-ಮ ಜರು1Z ಅಂಾ /ೕದ ದೂರನು ಪFೆದು oÁuÁ ಗು£Éß ನಂ:-284/2023 ಕಲಂ:420, 376(J£ï), 312 L¦¹ jÃvÀå ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹zÉ." (Emphasis supplied) 8. On reading the extracted portion and the fact that the complainant is a B.A. graduate and aged about 34 years, what emerges is that respondent No.2 and petitioner were not strangers but had developed some sort of acquaintance as they being neighbours. Their acquaintance was, therefore, natural and longstanding, and not one that commenced abruptly or in suspicious circumstances. The complaint itself discloses that the parties were engaged in a prolonged physical relationship beginning in the year 2019. According to her own narration, the first alleged act of sexual intercourse took place on 14.08.2019 around 11:00 p.m., and the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 relationship continued unabated even after an alleged abortion in May 2022. 9. The records reveal that she had undergone abortion on two occasions. If these factual matrix is taken into consideration, respondent No.2, a women of a descent age who had also done her graduation in B.A. is presumed to have some amount of maturity. Despite of first abortion as per her own version, she continued physical relationship with the accused and got pregnant for the second time. The continuation of physical relationship post abortion militates against the complainant's own assertion of coercion or inducement. In such circumstances, the ingredients of a sexual relationship induced by "misconception of fact" as contemplated under Section 90 IPC are not made out. The facts as borne out from the complaint rather indicate sustained consensual involvement between two adults. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 10. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that for a case to fall under the ambit of Section 375 IPC read with Section 90 IPC, it must be shown that the consent was obtained under a misconception of fact that had a direct nexus to the act itself. Mere failure to fulfill a promise of marriage, without more, does not vitiate consent. Similarly, in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (supra), it was held that when a relationship between parties was of long duration and the complainant was aware of the nature and consequences of the relationship, the element of misconception or misrepresentation would not arise. 11. This Court in Mallikarjun Desai Goudar v. State of Karnataka (supra), followed the same principle and quashed proceedings where it found that the complainant continued her relationship despite alleged inducement, holding that the same could not be termed as rape. Likewise, in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 Maharashtra (supra), the Hon’ble Court reiterated that sustained physical relationship between adults, especially when the complainant is aware of the implications, cannot ipso facto be construed as rape. 12. More recently, in Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court again underscored that mere breach of a promise or strained relationships that arise later do not, by themselves, constitute an offence under Section 375 IPC unless the initial consent was unequivocally and demonstrably vitiated by deceit directly connected to the act. 13. In light of the above authoritative pronouncements and the factual matrix disclosed in the complaint itself, it becomes manifest that the relationship between the complainant and accused No.1 was neither brief nor exploitative in the legal sense. Rather, it was a voluntarily sustained relationship between two adults, known to each other as neighbours, with no apparent - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 indication of coercion, inducement, or false promise vitiating the complainant’s consent. Therefore, the essential ingredients to attract the offence of rape under Section 375 IPC are not forthcoming. 14. The law is well-settled that for an offence under Section 375 IPC to be made out on the basis of false promise to marry, it must be shown that the promise was false at the inception and that the accused never intended to fulfill the promise. Mere breach of a promise subsequently, or a change in intention over time, cannot ipso facto bring the case within the ambit of Section 375 of IPC. In the present case, the materials on record do not support the conclusion that the petitioner misled the complainant with a false assurance of marriage right from the beginning. There are no specific averments or cogent material indicating that the complainant’s consent was obtained through deception or that the petitioner exploited her under a fraudulent promise. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 15. On the contrary, what emerges from the complaint is that the petitioner and respondent No.2, being adults and neighbours, were engaged in a consensual sexual relationship that spanned nearly five years, with no material indicating that the complainant’s consent was obtained through coercion, deception, or inducement. The complaint, even if accepted at face value, fails to disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC or any allied offences, as there is nothing to suggest that the complainant’s consent was anything but voluntary and informed. In such a scenario, allowing the continuation of criminal proceedings in S.C.No.43/2024 would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law and result in a grave miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court deems it just and necessary to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.43/2024, pending before - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37725 CRL.P No. 5294 of 2024 the learned District and Sessions Judge, to secure the ends of justice. 16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed; (ii) The entire proceedings in S.C.No.43/2024 on the file of the Additional District Judge, FTSC-I at Davanagere, for offences punishable under Sections 417, 376(2)(n), 313 and 506 of IPC are hereby quashed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47