- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27289 CRL.P No. 11167 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11167 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI ACHYUTHANANDA CHAND @ RAHUL S/O SUBHASH CHAND AGED 28 YEARS R/AT NO.A3/1, NCL COLONY, SINGROLI TOWN MADHYA PRADESH - 486 889 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.PRASAD.K.R.RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.INDIRA PRIYA DHARSHINI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA COMPLEX AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560001 2. SMT. SONALI DAS D/O PRANESH DAS AGED 24 YEARS R/AT NO.13, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR CHANDAN BAKERY B NARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE - 562135 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.R.SHAILESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27289 CRL.P No. 11167 of 2022 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR, CHARGE SHEET AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1612/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 376 AND 417 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-54), BENGALURU (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.401/2020 OF MAHADEVAPURA P.S.) THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is the sole accused has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the FIR, charge sheet and entire criminal proceedings in S.C.No.1612/2022 on the file of LIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-54), Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 IPC (arising out of Cr.No.401/2020 of Mahadevapura PS). 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that the registering of FIR, consequent investigation and charge sheet are impermissible, illegal and amount to abuse of the process of law. The allegations - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27289 CRL.P No. 11167 of 2022 made in the complaint are false. Even if the entire averments made in the charge sheet are accepted, they would not attract the provisions of Sections 376 and 417 IPC. The allegations made that consistently petitioner used to take complainant to different hotels and commit sexual assault is inherently false and not reliable. Petitioner and complainant were in live-in relationship for a period of one year and stayed together. They had sexual relationship and as such Section 376 IPC would not attract. During the course of her statement before the Medical Officers and investigating officers, complainant has clearly admitted the fact of she having physical relationship with the petitioner. Such being the case it cannot be termed as offence. There is delay of more than 2 years 4 months in filing the complaint. They were the consenting adults and as such criminal prosecution of petitioner would be abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition. 3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27289 CRL.P No. 11167 of 2022 (i) Dr.Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Dr.Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar)1 (ii) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar)2 (iii) Uday Vs. State of Karnataka (Uday)3 (iv) Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand (Maheshwar Tigga)4 (v) Ravish Singh Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. (Ravish Singh Rana)5 4. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State and learned counsel representing respondent No.2 would submit that complainant is a beautician working at Urban Cap, Koramangala, Bengaluru. She is native of Tejpur, Assam. She came to Bengaluru for work, during 2017. Initially, she was working at Airport duty free outlet as sales girl for a period of 1 year 3 months. During the said period, she came in contact with the petitioner through the dating sight 'Happen'. Initially they started chatting during 1 (2019) 18 SC 191 2 (2019) 9 SCC 608 3 (2003) 4 SCC 46 4 (2020) 10 SCC 108 5 2025 SCC Online SC 1055 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27289 CRL.P No. 11167 of 2022 which petitioner proposed to her and she accepted his proposal. When they met in person, after sometime, petitioner promised to marry her. He insisted and forced the complainant to have sexual intercourse promising to marry her. She always tried to avoid, but he would force. Initially she was living in a Pay-in guest accommodation at Kammanahalli. 4.1 Petitioner forced her to take a house on rent so that he can stay with her. Petitioner used to book a rooms in hotels and used to have sexual intercourse without her consent. On 24.12.2019, complainant shifted to a rented house and petitioner used to visit her regularly. On 28.11.2020, petitioner left to his native place assuring that he would convince his parents to marry her. However, he stopped taking her calls and also failed to respond to her messages. Petitioner also switched off both his cell numbers. This made her to grow suspicion and therefore, she went to house of petitioner at Singroli, Madhya Pradesh and met his father. He refused to grant permission to his - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27289 CRL.P No. 11167 of 2022 son to marry her and also she was not allowed to meet him and therefore, without any alternative complaint is filed. 4.2 They would further submit that after conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed. It makes out a strong prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner. It requires a detailed trial and pray to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard arguments and perused the record. 6. From the material placed on record, it is evident that when the complaint was filed on 19.12.2020, respondent No.2, i.e, complainant was aged 24 years. Thus, according to the complaint averments in 2018, when complainant and petitioner came to be acquainted with each other, she was aged around 22 years. She was a major and had attained the age of discretion. She has stated that from 11.07.2018, they started chatting on the site and in the month of August, he proposed and she accepted it. Later, after few days when they met in person - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27289 CRL.P No. 11167 of 2022 he promised to marry her. He insisted and forced her to have sexual intercourse, but though she tried to avoid, by force he would succeed. He used to book rooms in hotels and have sexual intercourse without her consent. Since the complainant was living in a pay-in guest accommodation, the petitioner insisted on her to set up a residence. Ultimately, on 24.12.2019, complainant set up a single bedroom house on rent and petitioner used to visit her regularly. 7. Thus, the complaint averments itself clearly indicates that it is a case of consensual sexual relationship between two adults. If at all the petitioner set up sexual relationship with her by force, she could have complained after the very first incident. Very fact that whenever the petitioner has booked rooms in the hotels and took complainant, she has readily accompanied him and indulged in physical relationship without any muse or resistance. If at all the petitioner had physical relationship - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27289 CRL.P No. 11167 of 2022 with her against her consent, question of promise to marry would not arise. 8. Though in the complaint, the respondent No.2 has stated that when she set up a one bedroom house, petitioner used to regularly visit her and have sexual intercourse, in the charge sheet, it is stated that they were staying together in the said house by way of live-in- relationship. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision, in the matter of Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs State of Maharashtra (Amol Bhagwan Nehul)6, it is not a case of consent under a misconception of fact, but rather a case of adult woman, giving consent for the sexual relationship, knowing the consequences. The conduct of complainant in setting up sexual relationship with petitioner for a prolonged period, clearly indicate that it is a case of consensual relationship, contrary to the allegations that under misconception of facts, she gave consent for sexual relationship. Allegations that petitioner 6 2025 SCC Online SC 1230 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27289 CRL.P No. 11167 of 2022 on multiple occasions, committed rape on her against her consent by promising to marry her, exerting force against her will for committing sexual intercourse and securing her consent on a false promise of marriage are mutually contradictory to each other. It is a case of two consenting adults entering into physical relationship knowing the consequences. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and it is liable to be quashed and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings in S.C.No.1612/2022 on the file of LIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH- 54), Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 IPC (arising - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27289 CRL.P No. 11167 of 2022 out of Cr.No.401/2020 of Mahadevapura PS), is hereby quashed. (iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51