- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1105 CRL.P No. 100499 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100499 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RENAVVA P MADAR W/O. PADIYAPPA MADAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. SHANTIGIRI, RON TALUK, GADAG-582209. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN PRABHAKAR TARIKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH ITS RON POLICE STATION, DHAWAD-580011. 2. GANGAVVA B KATTIMANI W/O. BHARAMAPPA KATTMANI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. NURSE, R/O. AT GODACHIKOND, HIREKERUR TALUK, SHANTAGERI, RON, GADAG DISTRICT-582209. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRIME NO.244/2017 REGISTERED BY RON POLICE STATION IN S.C.NO.41/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, GADAG FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376, 420, 506, 504 IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.25 11:20:42 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1105 CRL.P No. 100499 of 2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner/accused No.2, who is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 506, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 is the brother of accused No.2, and accused No.1 induced the de facto complainant to have sexual intercourse by promising to marry her. The allegation against accused No.2 is that she introduced the de facto complainant to accused No.1. 3. Respondent No.2–de facto complainant, who has been served with notice, has not chosen to appear in person or through counsel, and therefore, she is placed ex parte. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1- State. 5. The allegation of inducing the complainant to have sexual intercourse is against accused No.1, and the only allegation against accused No.2 is that she had introduced the de facto complainant to accused No.1. There is no allegation that accused No.2 instigated accused No.1 to induce the complainant to have sexual intercourse by promising to marry. To constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be a specific allegation that accused No.2 should have induced the complainant to have sexual intercourse with accused No.1 by making a false promise that her - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1105 CRL.P No. 100499 of 2021 marriage with Accused No.1 will be solemnised at inception. In the absence of any such specific allegation, the petitioner/accused No.2 cannot be prosecuted for the aforesaid offence only on the allegation that she introduced the complainant to accused No.1. Accused No.1 and the complainant were allegedly in relation from 01.01.2014 to 15.11.2017. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in S.C. No.41/2018 pending on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Gadag, insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused No.2, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66