- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28305 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 976 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP.) AND: VEERAM PATEL S/O. PONAMRAM PATEL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, G 4TH CROSS, NEAR MARUTHI SCHOOL, OPP: ADITHYA BAR ROAD, VRUSHUBHAVATHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 039. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR PRAKASH, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 06.06.2018 IN S.C.NO.1388/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-54), BANGALORE. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.06 11:05:44 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28305 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER The State has preferred this appeal against the order dated 06.06.2018 passed on application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by the Court of LIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-54) in S.C.No.1388/2016. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376, 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused, taking advantage of victim who was the Garments employee and having came to know that her - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28305 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2018 husband is alcoholic made her to send her husband to his village, got rented house for victim by himself, staying with her in the said house committed repeated forcible sexual intercourse with her by putting her under threat. As such, the police has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of offence. 5. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was registered against accused in CC.No.18007/2016. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered in S.C.No.1388/2016. Before the Sessions Court, application under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed seeking to discharge the accused for the alleged commission of offence as there are no material to attract the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has allowed the petition and discharged the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376, 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28305 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2018 impugned order, the State has preferred this revision petition. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. M R Patil submits that impugned order passed by the Court below is illegal, invalid, contrary to law and probabilities of the case. The Trial Court, without considering the charge sheet and material placed by the prosecution in its proper perspective, has discharge the accused. Further, the Trial Court has discharged the accused mainly on the ground that the victim lady is major and she has all the knowledge and awareness of the act being committed and she has willingly participated and as such, there was no force or fraud played by the accused and even there is no prima-facie case in charge sheet insofar as cheating, assault and intimidating the victim, which is an error. Further, it is submitted that the charge sheet material also establishes that accused has cheated the victim by giving false promise had committed sexual act upon the victim and played fraud and as such, there was no free and valid - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28305 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2018 consent and the accused had all the intention of cheating from the inception of relationship. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition. 7. As against this, learned counsel for respondent would submit that admittedly, both accused and victim are married and the question of promise made by the accused to marry victim does not arise and absolutely there are no grounds to attract alleged commission of offence and the Sessions Court has rightly discharged the accused for the alleged offence and sought to dismiss the revision petition. 8. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned High Court Government Pleader for State and learned counsel for respondent. 9. On the basis of the complaint filed by Smt. Manjula, i.e. the victim, the case was registered against accused Veeram Patel for offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, the investigating officer has submitted the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28305 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2018 charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable for the alleged commission of offence. Thereafter, the case was registered in C.C.No.18007/2016 and subsequently, case was committed to Sessions Court where case came to be registered in S.C.No.3188/2016 and having heard the arguments on framing of charges, discharged the accused for the alleged commission of offence by allowing the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. 10. It is the specific case of the prosecution that as per the charge sheet, accused taking advantage of victim who was an employee in Garments factory and having came to know that her husband is alcoholic, made her to send her husband to his village and got a rented house for victim by himself, and staying with her in the said house committed repeated forcible sexual intercourse with her by putting her under threat. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offence. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28305 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2018 11. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Sessions, the Sessions Court has assigned the reasons at paragraph No.6 which reads as under: "In pursuance of complaint dated 26.1.2016 given by complainant herein to the complainant-police, FIR came to be registered against accused in Cr.No.36/2016 under Section 376,420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against accused herein. Complainant in her complaint asserted that accused taking advantage of her situation telling that he will get own house to her and marry her by getting her divorce from her husband, brought her to rented house by sending her husband to his village who is alcoholic and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. This statement establishes that victim/CW1 being married lady after sending her husband to village started residing in the house taken by accused by leaving her matrimonial home. She being adult lady capable of understanding her act left her matrimonial home at her own peril. There is no material for alleged rape or threat. In Anjanappa Vs. State of Karnataka Crl.Appeal No.1833 of 2006, the Hon'ble High Court held that consensual - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28305 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2018 sex between the accused and the complainant will not constitute an offence of Section 417 or 376 of IPC. In Crl. Appeal 336 of 1996 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 19.03.2003 Uday vs. State of Karnataka, the Hon'ble High Court held that there is no ingredient to satisfy the requirement under Section 375 of IPC as the prosecutrix had consented to sexual intercourse by the accused and was out of her free will and consent. Further, this matter went upto Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision reported in AIR 2003 SC 1639 observed that "accused expressed love and promise to marry prosecutrix on later date, if for any reason accused refused to marry prosecutrix same will not amount to rape. It is the contention of complainant that accused had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. She is not a child. There is also delay in lodging the complaint. Complainant being adult lady capable of understanding the consequences of accompanying male person to his house and she has done such act at her own peril. The only allegation available against accused is of breach of promise to marry. The complainant had not been able to provide any material to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28305 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2018 demonstrate that she had been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by accused. There is no injury on the private part of the victim as per medical report issued by K.C. General Hospital. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 44 of 2004 decided on 3.11.2004 observed that when a promise to marry a woman and even had a physical relationship with her and subsequently marriage cannot come through it cannot be said that an offence either of offences under Section 376 or under Section 147 of IPC is made. In such a case, the liability could only be under civil law for damages. Further, complainant i.e married lady and her marriage is surviving. Relying upon these principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and circumstances referred supra this Court opines that there are no sufficient material to proceed against accused for the offence referred supra. Accordingly, I have answered point No.1 in the Negative." 12. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decision and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, so - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28305 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2018 also the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court to discharge the accused, I do not find any error/legal infirmities in the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court. 13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is dismissed. ii. The order dated 06.06.2018 passed on application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.1388/2016 on the file of the LIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore (CCH- 54) is hereby confirmed. iii. Registry is directed to send copy of this order along with trial court records forthwith, to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30