- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:528 CRL.P No. 102611 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102611 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MAHADEV @ MADEV, S/O. GUDAPPA HASLAR, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR, R/O. MARKET YARD POLICE QUARTERS, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH V.BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BANAVASI P.S., REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580008. 2. JYOTI W/O. MUKUND KANADE AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BAPUJI NAGAR, OPPOSITE KRISHNA MARBLE, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VIDYASHANKAR M.DALAWAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANAPATI M.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ADMIT THE PETITION, CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT, FIR AND THE CHARGESHEET VIDE ANNEXURE-A, B AND C FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SEC. 323, 376(2)(A), 417, 420, 504 AND 506 OF IPC, AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO IT IN S.C. NO.5046/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (KARWAR), SITTING AT SIRSI. B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.17 16:32:47 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:528 CRL.P No. 102611 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The Petitioner has been chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 323, 376(2)(a), 417, 420, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, based on a complaint filed by the second respondent, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner in PS Crime No. 119/2021 on 08.12.2021 for the aforementioned offences. According to the complaint, the second respondent, a resident of Sirsi, was acquainted with the petitioner as a family friend who often visited her home. It is further alleged that the second respondent’s husband was employed with KVG Bank and became bedridden after a road accident that caused paralysis below his chest. 3. The allegations state that, on 18.08.2016, the petitioner visited the second respondent’s home and requested her husband to allow her to accompany him to inspect some land he intended to purchase in Kerkoppa village. It is alleged that, under this pretext, the petitioner took the second respondent into a forested area, approximately half a kilometer from the intended site, and forcibly raped her. Following this, when the second respondent questioned the petitioner about his actions, he - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:528 CRL.P No. 102611 of 2022 allegedly expressed his love for her and proposed to marry her as his second wife after her husband’s death. 4. It is further alleged that the petitioner induced the second respondent to give him approximately ₹7,00,000 over the course of their relationship, under the pretense of requiring financial support. Out of this amount, it is claimed that the petitioner returned ₹3,71,000 but failed to repay the balance. Additionally, on 11.10.2020, the petitioner allegedly visited the second respondent’s house and had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. 5. After the second respondent’s husband passed away on 28.04.2021, the petitioner allegedly ceased all contact with her, thereby breaching his promise to marry her. Subsequently, the second respondent filed the present complaint, leading to the registration of the case. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1/State, and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 7. It is undisputed that the petitioner and the second respondent were in a consensual relationship from 18.08.2016 to 11.10.2020. During this period, the second respondent was married and living with her husband, with whom she had two children. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:528 CRL.P No. 102611 of 2022 8. The first alleged instance of forcible sexual intercourse occurred on 18.08.2016 when the petitioner purportedly took the second respondent to inspect a land parcel and instead raped her in a forested area. The second alleged instance occurred on 11.10.2020, wherein the petitioner is accused of having forcible sexual intercourse with the second respondent at her residence. 9. After the death of the second respondent’s husband on 28.04.2021, there are no allegations that the petitioner made any further promises of marriage or induced the second respondent into a sexual relationship. 10. The prosecution has failed to produce independent evidence substantiating that the petitioner promised to marry the second respondent or that he took ₹7,00,000 from her, apart from her self-serving statements. Additionally, the amount allegedly returned by the petitioner (₹3,71,000) is also unsubstantiated by documentary evidence or corroborative testimony. 11. To attract the provisions of Section 376 IPC, it is essential to establish that the accused engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent or under a false pretext, such as a promise to marry, which the accused never intended to fulfill. However, in this case, the prosecution has not provided any evidence to substantiate that the petitioner initially induced the second respondent into a sexual relationship with a false promise of marriage. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:528 CRL.P No. 102611 of 2022 12. It is significant to note that, during the alleged relationship with the petitioner, the second respondent was married and not legally entitled to marry the petitioner. Consequently, the second respondent cannot claim that she was induced into a sexual relationship under the false pretense of marriage, as the promise of marriage would be legally unenforceable. 13. Allegations of monetary transactions lack corroboration through independent evidence such as bank records or witnesses. The prosecution has not placed on record any documents to substantiate the same. 14. The learned counsel for the second respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs. State of A.P., which deals with Section 114A of the Evidence Act, 1872. While this provision establishes a presumption of absence of consent in cases of proven sexual intercourse where the complainant denies consent, the present case is distinguishable. The prosecution has not presented any material evidence to prove that the petitioner forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with the second respondent on either occasion. 15. In light of the above, the essential ingredients of Section 376 IPC, particularly the requirement to prove that the accused intended to deceive the complainant from the inception by making a false promise of marriage, are conspicuously absent. Furthermore, the allegations lack substantive evidence to establish - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:528 CRL.P No. 102611 of 2022 the petitioner’s guilt under Sections 417, 420, or other provisions invoked. 16. Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, based solely on unsubstantiated allegations and self- serving statements, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 17. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in S.C. No.5046/2022 pending on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53