- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8164 CRL.RP No. 920 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 920 OF 2018 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 1. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) AND: SANTHOSH C S/O CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO. 100, 10TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR BENGALURU - 50. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C H HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 14.06.2018 IN S.C.NO.548/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE(CCH-54). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8164 CRL.RP No. 920 of 2018 ORAL ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner- State, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.06.2018 passed in S.C.No.548/2016 by the Court of LIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore seeking to set aside the said order discharging accused No.1/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC. 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. Factual Matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim - a married woman had acquainted with accused No.1- respondent. It is stated that accused No.1/respondent herein had promised the victim that he would marry her and in that context, he took her to Makedatu. On 16.03.2015, he took her to his newly constructed flat situated at J.P.Nagar, 8th phase, Bangalore and it is stated that he committed sexual intercourse. When the victim insisted him to marry her, he refused to marry her - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8164 CRL.RP No. 920 of 2018 and also he further stated that he was her friend and he had no intention to marry her. 4. Being aggrieved by the act of accused No.1, she had been to meet his mother. After having met her, she narrated the incident to his mother. However, the mother of accused No.1 also refused to perform the marriage. Therefore, she lodged a complaint before the respondent police. 5. The respondent-police after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the accused. Being aggrieved by filing of charge sheet, accused No.1 had preferred an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., for discharging him for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC before the Trial Court. 6. The Trial Court after considering the application on merits, allowed the application and discharged accused No.1 for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-State preferred this petition challenging the validity of the order passed by the Trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8164 CRL.RP No. 920 of 2018 7. Heard Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner – State and Sri.C.H.Hanumantharaya, learned counsel for the respondent-accused No.1. 8. It is the submission of learned HCGP for the petitioner- State that though the petitioner has made out a case to frame charge, the Trial Court did not consider the averments of the complaint and the charge sheet, discharged accused No.1/respondent which is erroneous and not proper. 9. It is further submitted that when the Prima-facie materials available on record to frame charge, the Trial Court without hesitation ought to have framed the charge. It is also further stated that the Trial Court while considering the application for discharge has to go through the averments of the charge sheet as genuine and relevant and it should act upon such averments. 10. It is further submitted that the complainant lodges a complaint and made available relevant documents to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8164 CRL.RP No. 920 of 2018 substantiate her case. However, those documents and statements have been ignored by the Trial Court considering only the age of the victim. The Trial Court could have considered the intention of the respondent to have a consent for the sexual act. Though the intention of the respondent has to be elicited in the trial and it is a matter of fact, the Trial Court ignored he said aspect and proceeded to allow the application which is not proper and appropriate. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-accused No.1 vehemently justified the order passed by the Trial Court and he further submitted that it is an admitted fact that, the victim being a married woman did not obtain divorce from her first husband as on the date of alleged commission of offence. There is no occasion for her that she would marry respondent-accused No.1 during the subsistence of her first marriage. 12. It is further submitted that though, the alleged act of rape stated to be committed by the respondent in his - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8164 CRL.RP No. 920 of 2018 apartment on 16.03.2015, she lodged a complaint on 22.04.2015. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. No medical evidence would corroborate her statement. Such being the fact, even if the respondent is subjected to face the trial, no fruitful result would be expected. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent prays to dismiss the petition. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint and also the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the complainant is stated to be the victim. She lodged a complaint on 22.04.2015 against the respondent and others, stating that on 15.03.2015, the respondent took her to Makedatur situated near Sangama, Kanakapura. 14. It is further stated that on 16.03.2015, the accused had invited her to visit his newly purchased flat situated at J.P.Nagar, Banglaore. It is further stated that she had been subjected to rape on that day. Thereafter, she insisted the respondent to marry her. However, not only - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8164 CRL.RP No. 920 of 2018 he refused to marry her, but also, the family member of the respondent also refused to perform the marriage. 15. On reading of the above facts of the case, even assuming that the respondent had committed sexual intercourse with the victim, the fact remains that as on the date of alleged act, she had not obtained divorce from her first husband. Such being the fact, she cannot expect that he would marry her and also she believed the false promise and consented for sexual intercourse. 16. When the victim herself was not in a position to marry the respondent/accused No.1 as she has not obtained divorce legally from her first husband, making allegations that the respondent had committed sexual intercourse on the pretext of false promise to marry cannot be believable and the said allegations are unsustainable. 17. Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner- State has not made out a case to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court in allowing the application for - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8164 CRL.RP No. 920 of 2018 discharge. Hence, I declined to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. 18. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. ii. The order dated 14.06.2018 passed in S.C.No.548/2016 by the Court of LIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46