- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10552 CRL.P No. 102674 of 2023 C/W WP NO.105223 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102674 OF 2023 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) C/W WRIT PEITION NO.105223 OF 2023 IN CRL.P. NO.102674 OF 2023: BETWEEN: 1. SHRI MOHAN LOLU KHOBREKAR, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. FISHERMEN, R/O. DEVBHAG VILLAGE, KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 301. 2. SMT. SUNANDA MOHAN KHOBREKAR, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DEVBHAG VILLAGE, MALDARWAD, SADASHIVAGAD, KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 301. 3. SMT. USHA MAHABALESHWAR AMBIG, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. AGHANASINI, TQ. KUMATA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 332. 4. SHRI SANJAY SURESH KHOBREKAR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DEVBHAG VILLAGE, KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 301. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH PSI, CHITTAKULA POLICE STATION, KARWAR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581 301. 2. VICTIM / COMPLAINANT … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10552 CRL.P No. 102674 of 2023 C/W WP NO.105223 of 2023 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE DISCHARGE APPLICATION ORDER PASSED BY PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA IN S.C. NO.21/2018 DATED 22/11/2022 ON APPLICATION FILLED UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C. AND ALLOW THE PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN W.P. NO.105223 OF 2023: BETWEEN: NARESH S/O MOHAN KHOBREKAR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. DEVABAGH, KARWAR, UTTAR KANNADA-581 301. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHITTAKUL P.S., REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-581 301. 2. VICTIM / COMPLAINANT … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CHARGE SHEET AND PROCESS ISSUED BY IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KARWAR UTTARA KANNADA IN SPL. CASE NO.21/2018 IN CHITTAKUL P.S. CRIME NO.0028/2018 DATED 07/04/2018 ANNEXURE-G AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSE NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 376, 417, 504, 506 AND 109 R/W 149 OF I.P.C. -1860 BY ALLOWING THE PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10552 CRL.P No. 102674 of 2023 C/W WP NO.105223 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Petitioners – accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 in Criminal Petition No.102674/2023 are before this Court with a prayer to set aside the order dated 22.11.2022 passed in S.C. No.21/2018 by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar District registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 376, 417, 504, 506, 109 and 149 of IPC, wherein the application filed by the accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge was dismissed. Whereas, petitioner – accused No.1 in W.P. No.105223/2023 is before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case i.e., S.C. No.21/2018 pending before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.28/2018 was registered by Chittakula Police Station, Uttara Kannada District initially for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 376, 417, 504, 506, 109, 149 of IPC against accused No.1 – Naresh Mohan and others. After completing investigation in the said case, charge - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10552 CRL.P No. 102674 of 2023 C/W WP NO.105223 of 2023 sheet has been filed for the aforesaid offences against five persons and petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 in the charge sheet. After the case was committed to the jurisdictional Sessions Court, the same was numbered as S.C. No.21/2018 and in the said proceedings, accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge. The said application was opposed by the prosecution by filing objections. Trial Court has rejected the said application. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Material on record would go to show that allegation in the first information, which is submitted by the victim girl aged about 23 years, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 in these petitions is that, she was acquainted to the accused No.1 for the last about seven years prior to registration of the FIR and they were loving each other. He had allegedly promised to marry her. For the last about three years, he is working in Dubai as Machine Operator and she was working as a Teacher. About three years prior to registration of FIR, when she was alone in her house, accused No.1, who came to her house - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10552 CRL.P No. 102674 of 2023 C/W WP NO.105223 of 2023 allegedly caught hold of her and asked for sexual favour. She refused on the ground that she can co-operate for the same only after marriage. However, he allegedly had sex with her inspite of she opposing the same. Thereafter, when she questioned accused No.1, he allegedly informed her that he would marry her. Subsequently, he had sexual intercourse with her many times though she was not willing for the same. 5. She has stated that when the accused No.1 was abroad, they used to talk and exchange messages in their mobile phone. Subsequently accused No.1 allegedly changed his behaviour and about three weeks prior to registration of FIR, he had returned from Dubai and had informed the victim girl that he was not willing to marry her. Therefore, a panchayat was held on 27.03.2018 which was attended by the relatives and the mother of the victim girl and also the father of the victim girl. Accused No.1 had not attended the said Panchayath on 27.03.2018. Hence, separate Panchayath was held on 02.04.2018 and in the said Panchayat, accused No.1 had participated and informed the Panchayat that he was not willing to marry the victim girl. His parents, sister, brother-in- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10552 CRL.P No. 102674 of 2023 C/W WP NO.105223 of 2023 law and other relatives allegedly abused the mother of victim girl using filthy language and it is under these circumstances, FIR was registered based on the first information submitted by the victim girl. 6. Though petitioners in Criminal Petition No.102674/2023 were not arrayed as accused in the FIR, in the charge sheet they are now arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6. They are the father, mother, sister and cousin brother of accused No.1. The averments found in the first information as well as the allegations in the charge sheet would clearly go to show that accused No.1 and the first informant, who is the victim in the present case were in love for a considerable period of more than seven years. The first informant was aged about 23 years as on the date of registration of FIR. If that is so, she got acquainted to the accused No.1 when she was aged about 16 years. In the first information, allegation against accused No.1 is that about three years prior to the date of registration of FIR, he had come to the house of the victim girl and had asked her for sexual favour. When she informed him that she would co-operate with him for sex after marriage, he allegedly - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10552 CRL.P No. 102674 of 2023 C/W WP NO.105223 of 2023 had sexual intercourse with her inspite of she resisting his act. There is no such allegation in the first information that the said act was committed by the petitioner – accused No.1 with a promise to marry the victim girl. On the other hand, in the first information, it is stated that after the act was committed, when the same was questioned by the victim girl, accused No.1 had informed that he would be marrying her and therefore, had asked her not to inform about the act to anybody. Even after the said incident, undisputedly the victim girl and accused No.1 had sexual intercourse on many occasions, as stated by the victim girl herself in her first information. 7. It appears that subsequently, accused No.1 had gone abroad and even thereafter, the accused No.1 and the victim girl were in contact and they were exchanging messages over mobile phone and talking to each other over phone. According to the victim girl, subsequently the accused No.1 had changed his attitude and after he returned from Dubai, he had refused to marry her and therefore, a panchayat was arranged on 27.03.2018, which was adjourned since accused No.1 had not attended the same. In the subsequent Panchayath that was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10552 CRL.P No. 102674 of 2023 C/W WP NO.105223 of 2023 held on 02.04.2018, accused persons had attended the same and allegation against accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 is that on the said day they had abused the mother of the victim girl using filthy language. The alleged incident and the panchayat had all taken place only after the accused No.1 allegedly had refused to marry the victim girl with whom he had a relationship for a period of more than seven years. In the first information, it is not stated that from the inception itself accused No.1 had no intention to marry the victim girl nor there is an allegation that the first act of sexual intercourse was committed by him with a promise to marry her. In the case of Shivashankar vs. State of Karnataka1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that, it is difficult to hold that sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship which had continued for a period of eight years is rape. It is not the case of the first informant, who is the victim in the present case, that the accused No.1 had induced her to have sexual intercourse with a promise to marry her. Merely for the reason that the parties who had shared a relationship for a considerable period fails to keep up the promise for any reason 1 (2019) 18 SCC 204 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10552 CRL.P No. 102674 of 2023 C/W WP NO.105223 of 2023 which was beyond his / her control or on account of circumstances which the parties could not have foreseen, it cannot be said that the said parties can be prosecuted for alleged offences. 8. In the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 23 has observed as follows: “23. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an 2 (2019) 18 SCC 191 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10552 CRL.P No. 102674 of 2023 C/W WP NO.105223 of 2023 accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 of the IPC.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunal Chatterjee vs. The State of West Bengal and others in SLP (Crl.) No.7004/2025 has observed as follows: “This Court has held in several decisions that promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape and the reasons therein have been assigned (See: Prithivirajan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 696, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108).” 10. Therefore, it becomes highly doubtful that the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC gets attracted in the present case against accused No.1. So far as the other offences are concerned, they are all non-cognizable - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10552 CRL.P No. 102674 of 2023 C/W WP NO.105223 of 2023 offences and therefore, FIR could not have been registered without compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The Trial Judge has failed to appreciate these aspects of the matter and has erred in rejecting the application filed by accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6, as against whom the allegations made would attract only the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. 11. So far as accused No.1 is concerned, the major offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC are invoked in addition to the other offences. However, for the reason stated afore, I am of the opinion that considering the period of relationship shared between the parties, in the absence of specific allegations about sexual intercourse with a promise to marry the victim, the accused No.1 cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences. Merely for the reason that the relationship between the parties has turned sour after a considerable period of time, the act of consensual sex cannot be termed as rape. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10552 CRL.P No. 102674 of 2023 C/W WP NO.105223 of 2023 12. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made in these two petitions needs to be granted. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar District in S.C. No.21/2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 376, 417, 504, 506, 109 and 149 of IPC is set aside and accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 are discharged. iii) Writ Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings against accused No.1 in S.C. No.21/2018 pending before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar District arising out of Crime No.28/2018 registered by Chittakula Police Station, Uttara Kannada District for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 376, 417, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC is quashed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE RSH / CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 63