- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3900 CRL.P No. 101024 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101024 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MANJUNATH S/O. SHIVAPPA SANNINGAPPANAVAR, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. WATER MAN, R/AT. NEERALGI, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581205. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA TADAS POLICE STATION, HAVERI, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD. 2. SHRI. YALLAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA SUNAGAR AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/AT. NEERALGI, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581205. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 SRI. HIRANKUMAR J.PATEL, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1/PETITIONER AS IN TADAS POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 0087/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 64(1), 78 AND 332 OF BNS, 2023 AND U/SEC. 4 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I AT HAVERI IN SPL. SC NO. 90/2024. Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3900 CRL.P No. 101024 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Sri. Ashok T.Kattimani, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1-State. 2. The petitioner, who is facing charges for offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 78, and 332 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNS”), and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), is before this Court seeking relief. 3. The prosecution alleges that a complaint was filed by the father of the survivor on 28.08.2024, stating that on 16.07.2024, while he and his wife were out of town—leaving their children, including the survivor, alone at home—the accused trespassed into their house around 4:00 a.m., took the survivor to a room, and allegedly committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Upon returning home, the complainant and his wife discovered what had transpired. 4. Heard were the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 (the State). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3900 CRL.P No. 101024 of 2025 5. The father of the survivor, who is present before the Court and identified by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2, has expressed his no objection to quashing the impugned proceedings. The prosecution further alleges that the survivor was 17 years old at the time of the incident. The final opinion of the doctor who examined the survivor indicates that she visited the hospital 43 days after the incident. No forensic samples were collected due to the delay, and there were no signs of forcible physical violence or sexual assault; however, hymenal tears were observed, and the possibility of sexual violence could not be conclusively ruled out. 6. The petitioner/accused and Respondent No.2—the de facto complainant—have filed a Joint Memo stating that they are relatives and have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves. They further contend that the complaint was based on an anonymous letter and that neither the complainant nor the survivor has alleged any sexual assault by the accused. The survivor has categorically stated that, at the instance of the police, she was compelled to give a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse. Since the survivor has denied being subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused, the evidence does not, on a prima facie basis, establish that the alleged offences occurred. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3900 CRL.P No. 101024 of 2025 Consequently, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused would be an abuse of the process of law. 7. Hence, I pass the following: [Order to be inserted]. ORDER i) Accordingly, the petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl. S.C. No.90/2024 pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Haveri, insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused, is hereby quashed. Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40