- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9257 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. A. M. SHREEKANTHA S/O MAHESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC PLUMBER R/AT SHEKARAPPA BADAVANE AVARAGERE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY DAVANAGERE WOMEN POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE, REPT. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-500001. 2. SUNITHA .M S/O. LATE MALLIKARJUN AGED 20 YEARS R/AT 978, BOODAL ROAD SPS NAGARA, DAVANAGERE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2024 IN S.C.NO.205/2018 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, DAVANAGERE AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 376, 504, 506, 323, 417 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioner is assailing the order passed in S.C.No.205/2018 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Davanagere on an discharge application filed under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable under Section 376, 504, 506, 323, 417 r/w 34 of IPC. The said order is under challenge. 2. The present petitioner along with his family members has been charge-sheeted based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, a woman aged about 26 years at the relevant point of time. In her - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 complaint, respondent No.2 has alleged that she was in love with the petitioner/accused No.1, who is stated to be a close relative. It is alleged that the petitioner used to frequently visit her residence, and taking undue advantage of this acquaintance and the trust reposed in him, he is said to have committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on 06.08.2013 at around 12:30 p.m. 3. It is further alleged that such acts of forcible sexual intercourse continued thereafter. On 23.09.2016, the complainant, experiencing health issues, consulted a doctor and came to know that she was pregnant. Upon informing the petitioner about the pregnancy, she requested him to marry her. However, the petitioner is said to have expressed his inability to marry her immediately, but assured her that he would reconsider the matter. Based on this assurance, he allegedly made her consume certain pills on 26.11.2016, which resulted in termination of the pregnancy. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 4. The complainant has further alleged that the petitioner continued to have non-consensual sexual intercourse with her even thereafter. On 19.10.2017, when the complainant once again insisted that he marry her, the petitioner is said to have flatly refused. Alleging that the petitioner had deceitfully induced her into a physical relationship under the false pretext of marriage and subsequently refused to fulfill the said promise, the complainant lodged a formal complaint against the petitioner and his family members. 5. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506, 323, and 417 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner thereafter filed an application seeking discharge. However, the learned District and Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the materials on record, rejected the said application. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 6. Petitioner's counsel reiterating the grounds has strenuously argued and has placed reliance on the following judgments: 1) Mallikarjun Desai Goudar vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.4761/2022; 2) Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi - Crl.A. SLP.No.2793/2024; 3) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharasthra and Another - (2019) 9 SCC 608; 4) Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana - (2013) 7 SCC 675; 5) Mahesh Damu Khare vs. The State of Maharashtra & Another - SLP.No.4326/2018. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, would submit that the factual matrix involved in the present case is squarely covered by the principles laid down therein. He further refers to a decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court and contends that, even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at face - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 value and accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the commission of any offence as alleged. In light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, he urges that continuation of proceedings in S.C.No.205/2018 would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, prays for quashing of the same. 8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the complaint contains specific allegations which prima facie disclose that the petitioner/accused No.1 had induced the complainant/respondent No.2 into a physical relationship under the false pretext of marriage. It is his contention that the alleged consent was obtained under a clear misconception of fact, which vitiates the voluntary nature of the complainant's consent. Therefore, he argues that the legal principles relied upon by the petitioner are inapplicable to the present case, as the factual background is distinguishable. Accordingly, he submits that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.2/complainant though served has not chosen to contest the proceedings. The following point would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the allegations in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety as true, would constitute an offence under Section 376, 504, 506, 323, 417 r/w 34 of IPC? 2) What order? 10. Before adverting to the validity of the order impugned, this Court considers it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the complaint, as the same has a material bearing on the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings initiated against him for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506, 323, and 417 read with Section - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant excerpt from the complaint is reproduced hereinbelow: " ಸುೕಾ ಎಂ ಆದ ಾನು ೕಡುರುವ ದೂರು ಏೆಂದೆ, ನನೆ ದೂರದ ಸಂಬಂಧದ ಾವಾದ ೕಾಂ ತಂ!ೆ ಮ#ೇಶ%ರಪ' ಅವರೆೆಯ ಾಮ ಈತನು ನೊ+ಂ,ೆ ಸಲುೆ.ಂದ ಇದು0 ನಮ1ೆೆ ಬರುವ2ದು, #ೋಗುವ2ದು ಾಡುದನು. ಈೆ4 ಸುಾರು ಐದು ವಷ7ಗಳ 9ಂ!ೆ ಅಂದೆ ,ಾಂಕ 06.08.2013 ರಂದು ಮ!ಾ;ಹ+ 12:30ರ ಸಮಯzÀ°è ೕಾಂತನು ನಮ1 ಮೆೆ ಬಂ,ದು0, ನಮ1 ಮೆಯ ಒಬ>?ೆ ಇದು0 ೕಾಂತನು ಇದನು+ ದುರುಪ@ೕಗ ಪABೊಂಡು ನನ+ CೕDೆ ಬಲವಂತEಾF ಅಾ;Gಾರ ಾAದು0 ಈ Hಷಯವನು+ IಾJಗೂ #ೇಳKೇಡ ಾನು ನ+ೇ ಮದುEೆIಾಗುೇೆ ಎಂದು ನಂLBದು0 ನೊ+ಂ,ೆ Mದನಂೇ ಸಲುೆ ಇಂದDೇ ಇರುದ0. ೕಾಂತನು ಇ!ೇ Jೕ ನನ+ CೕDೆ ಹಲEಾರು KಾJ DೈಂFಕEಾF ಬಳBೊಂAದು0, ಾನು ,ಾಂಕ 23.09.2016 ರಂದು ಅಾೋಗ;,ಂದ ಈ.ಎO.L. #ಾB'ಟQUÉ RSೆTೆಂದು #ೋ!ಾಗ ಾನು ಗU7V ಆFರುವ HGಾರ Eೈದ;Jಂದ ೊಾFದು0, ಈ Hಷಯವನು+ ೕಾಂತಗೂ ಳB, ನನ+ನು+ ಮದುEೆIಾಗುವಂೆ ೇWೊಂXಾಗ ಅವನು ಈಗDೇ ಮಗು Kೇಡ ಎಂದು ಮದುEೆ ಆದ CೕDೆ ೋXೋಣ ಎಂದು #ೇW ,ಾಂಕ 26.11.2016 ರಂದು Iಾವ2!ೊ ಾೆಗಳನು+ ತಂದು ೊZ[ದು0 ನನೆ ಬಲವಂತEಾF ನುಂFBದನು. ಇದJಂದ ನನೆ ಗಭ7]ಾತEಾ.ತು. ಾನು ೕಾಂತನು ಮದುEೆIಾಗುೇೆ ಎಂಬ ಭರವ^ೆ.ಂದ ಈ HGಾರವನು+ IಾJಗೂ WBರಲ. ೕಾಂತನು E!ಾದ ನಂತರವ2 ಸಹ ನೊ+ಂ,ೆ DೈಂFಕ ಸಂಪಕ7ವನು+ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 ಮುಂದುವೆBದು0 ಾನು ,ಾಂಕ 19.10.2017 ರಂದು ೕಾಂತನನು+ KೇZIಾ!ಾಗ ಾನು ೕಾಂತೆ ಮದುEೆIಾಗುವಂೆ ಒಾ.ಸ!ಾಗ ೕನು ನನೆ ಸಹಕJಸ,ದ0ೆ ಾನು ನ+ನು+ ಮದುEೆIಾಗುವ2,ಲ ಎಂದು #ೆದJB ಬಲವಂತEಾF ನೊ+ಂ,ೆ !ೈ9ಕ ಸಂಪಕ7 ಾAದು0 ಇ!ಾದ ನಂತರ ಾನು ಹಲEಾರು KಾJ ೕಾಂತೆ ನನ+ನು+ ಮದುEೆIಾಗುವಂೆ ೇWದು0 ಆಗ ಅವನು ಏಾದರೂ ಒಂದು ೆಪ #ೇಳ_ದ0 ಅಲ!ೇ ಇGೆ`ೆ ಅವನು MKೈQ ಸಹ B%a ಾAೊಳ_bದ0Jಂದ ಾನು ನXೆದ HGಾರವನು+ ನಮ1 ಮೆಯ WBದು0 ನಂತರ ನcಮ ಾವ ೇವಣBದ0ಪ' ನಮ1 ಾ. #ಾಗೂ ಇತರೊಂ,ೆ ಈೆ4 ಎರಡು ಂಗಳ 9ಂ!ೆ ೕಾಂತನನು+ ಎೋ ಕWBದು0 ನಮ1 ಸಂಪಕ7ೆd Bಗದ ಆೆ ಾAರುಾೆ. ,ಾಂಕ 17.10.2018 ರಂದು ಮ!ಾ;ಹ+ 1 ಗಂeೆ ಸುಾJೆ ಾನು, ನಮ1 ಾ. ರತ+ಮ1 #ಾಗೂ ನನ+ ತಮ1 ಪರಸುಾಮ ^ೇJ ೕಾಂತನ ಮೆೆ #ೋFದು0 ೕಾಂತನನು+ ಕರB ಾತಾಡKೇಕು ಎಂದು ೇW!ಾಗ ಕೆಸುೇೆಂದು #ೇW ಸುಾರು ಮೂರು ಾಸು ಾ.Bದು0 ನಂತರ ೕಾಂತನು ಕೆBದು0, ಅವನ ಅಣf ಮಾಜು7ನ #ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಾವ #ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ತಂ!ೆ ಮ#ೇಶ%ರಪ' ಇವರು ನನಗೂ ೕಾಂತೊಂ,ಗೂ Iಾವ2!ೇ ಸಂಬಂಧHಲ ಎಂದು Kಾಂh ]ೇಪi CೕDೆ ಬೆದುೊಡು ಎಂದು ಒಾ.Bದು0 ಇದೆd ಾನು ಒಪ'!ೇ ಇ!ಾ0ಗ ಎDಾರೂ ^ೇJ ಅEಾಚ;ªÁV Kೈ.0ದು0 ಇೊ+ಂದು KಾJ ನಮ1 ಮೆ ಹರ ಬಂದೆ ಮ1ನು+ kೕವ ಸ9ತ Lಡುವ2,ಲ ಎಂದು #ೆದJB ಕಳ_9Bದರು #ಾಗೂ ನಮ1 ತಮ1ನ CೕDೆ ಸಹ ೈಗWಂದ ಹDೆ ಾAದು0 ನನಗೂ ಮದುEೆIಾಗುವ2!ಾF Mೕಸ ಾAದ0 ೕಾಂತ #ಾಗೂ KೆದJೆ #ಾSದ ಅವರ ಮೆಯವಾದ ಮಾಜು7ನ,, ಮ#ೇಶ%ರಪ', !ೇEೇಂದಪ' ಇವರ Hರುದl ಸೂಕ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 ಾನೂನು ಕಮ ಜರುFB ಎಂದು ೋರುೇೆ. ಈ ಘಟೆ.ಂದ ಮನೊಂದು ತಡEಾF ಈ ದೂರುನು+ ೕAರುೇೆ." 11. On a careful and deeper examination of the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet materials, what clearly emerges is that respondent No.2/complainant and petitioner/accused No.1 were not strangers but distant relatives. 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 2013. According to her own narration, the first alleged act of sexual intercourse took place on 06.08.2013 around 12:30 p.m., and the relationship continued unabated even after an alleged abortion on 26.11.2016. 12. It is particularly noteworthy that although the complainant now alleges that she was coerced into taking a pill to terminate her pregnancy on 26.11.2016, she - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 continued to voluntarily maintain physical relations with the petitioner even thereafter, until as late as 19.10.2017. This post-abortion continuation of physical intimacy 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. 13. 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 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. 14. 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 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. 15. 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, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 constitute an offence under Section 375 IPC unless the initial consent was unequivocally and demonstrably vitiated by deceit directly connected to the act. 16. 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 distant relatives, with no apparent 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. 17. 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 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 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. 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. 18. On the contrary, what emerges from the complaint is that the petitioner and respondent No.2, being adults and distant relatives, were engaged in a consensual sexual relationship that spanned nearly four 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 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 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.205/2018 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.205/2018, pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge, to secure the ends of justice. 19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court procees to pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed; (ii) The order dated 09.07.2024 passed on the application filed under Section 227 in S.C.No.205/2018 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-I at Davanagere - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29658 CRL.P No. 9257 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Section 376, 504, 506, 323, 417 r/w 34 of IPC is hereby quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46