- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42947 CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 743 OF 2018 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU - 01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP) AND: NAGESH @ NAGA S/O LATE GURUSIDDAIAH, AGED 30 YEARS, R/A NEAR ICICI BANK, COCA - COLA CROSS, ABBANAGUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI POST, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 109. PERMANENT ADDRESS CHANNAVADEYANPUR VILLAGE. BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPETE TALUK, CHANARAJANAGARA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.B.UMESH, ADVOCATE SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.928/2016 PASSED BY THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 AND 420 OF IPC AND ALLOW THIS CRL.RP. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42947 CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORDER This revision petition is filed challenging order dated 13.04.2018 passed by LIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in SC no.928/2016 in allowing application for discharge filed by respondent-accused. 2. Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned HCGP appearing for petitioner - State submitted, on 14.10.2015 a complaint was lodged by prosecutrix (victim) alleging that accused became acquainted with her and despite being informed about her earlier relationship had assured to marry her and while she was working in Apple Hospital had forcible sexual intercourse with her and repeated same during next 5 years and ultimately refused to marry her and during said time he had got her to part with sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of cash as well as one gold ring. Same was registered in Crime no.740/2015. After investigation, wherein statement of as many as 18 witnesses were recorded and charge sheet was filed on 24.03.2016 for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC. It was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42947 CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018 submitted prosecution had sufficient material to substantiate charges. 3. On an application filed by respondent/accused for discharge, trial Court without proper reasons allowed application and discharged accused. Aggrieved thereby revision petition was filed. It was submitted, while passing impugned order only reason assigned by trial Court was that having sexual intercourse on promise of marriage and later failing to fulfill said promise, would not constitute offence under Section 376 of IPC and only remedy would be to claim damages in civil suit would be unsustainable. 4. It was submitted, in complaint victim had clearly stated that on promise of marriage, accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Even charge sheet filed was on same allegation and prosecution was seeking to rely upon statement of as many as 18 witnesses which included Mahazar witnesses, statement of victim and medical officer, which would constitute prima-facie material in support of charges. Such being case, allowing application for discharge would be contrary to law and sought for quashing same. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42947 CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018 5. On other hand, Umesh PB, learned counsel appearing for Sri RB Deshpande, Advocate for respondent/accused opposed revision petition. It was submitted, in complaint case of victim was on promise of marriage, accused had sexual intercourse with her. Though allegation of forcing her to part with cash of Rs.15,000/- and gold ring on promise of marriage is alleged, she did not state about same in her further statement recorded. It was submitted Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaspal Singh Kaural v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 457 and decision of this Court in Crl.RP.no.731/2018 disposed of on 21.07.2025, under similar circumstances dismissed revision petition against order of discharge. On said ground sought for dismissal of revision petition. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order and material on record. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398, has held at time of considering discharge application, trial Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42947 CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018 would require to examine whether there was prima facie material to establish offences alleged and if so, application for discharge could not be entertained. 8. In instant case, perusal of complaint averments as well as further statement of victim would indicate allegation that accused had sexual intercourse with her on promise of marriage and later marriage did not come through. 9. Insofar as charge under Section 420 of IPC, it is seen prosecution has virtually collected no evidence nor victim had stated particulars of time and place of handing over cash. 10. While passing impugned order, trial Court observed that even as per victim there was allegation of sexual intercourse over a long period of time i.e., nearly five years admittedly, after victim had attaining age of majority. It referred to ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398, wherein it is held when prosecution failed to establish prima facie ingredients for offence as alleged there was no error in allowing application for discharge. Said order being in tune with ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42947 CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018 this Court in decisions relied upon, no case of perversity or infraction with any provision is established. Revision is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43