- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200404 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI VENKANGOUDA @ VENKI S/O KARIGOUDA, AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O. NIDIGOL VILLAGE, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 124. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE SHO., TURVIHAL PS, SINDHANUR, REPT. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585 102. 2. SMT. MANASA P.N. W/O VENKANAGOUDA @ VENKI, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NITTURUPURA, A.K. COLONY, TQ. GUBBI, DIST. TUMKUR-572 216. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B.YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PETITION AND FURTHER QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. CASE NO.5149/2024 (OLD SPL (AC) NO.1111/2022) PENDING ON THE FILE OF III-ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR (SITTING AT SINDHANUR) REGISTERED ON THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TURVIHAL P.S POLICE STATION BASED ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 323, 343, 376, 504, 506, OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.5149/2024 (Old Spl. (AC) No.1111/2022) pending on the file of III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, (Sitting at Sindhanur) for the offences punishable - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 under Sections 323, 343, 376, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015. 3. Factual matrix of the case: The averments of the complaint would indicate that the complainant, Smt.Manasa P.N., W/o Venkanagowda, was working in D-Mart situated at Bengaluru, for the past three years. She acquainted with the petitioner herein, who was also working in the same D-Mart along with her. Both developed intimacy with each other. He is stated to have committed sexual intercourse by keeping her in his room for three days. She was threatened that she should not disclose the said fact to anybody. It is further stated that he recorded the said incident in his mobile phone and he was blackmailing her that he would upload the said videos into social media etc. Since she had been repeatedly raped by the petitioner herein, she became pregnant. Therefore, she insisted him to marry her. Thereafter, he married her in the temple at Bengaluru on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 14.02.2020. After the marriage, they started residing in the same house at Bengaluru. On 03.10.2020, she gave birth to a female child. Thereafter, she was informed that petitioner has to go to his native place as his father has suffered mild heart attack and went there. Thereafter, he did not return to the house. It is also further stated that on 01.06.2022 around about 7.30 p.m., she came to the house of the petitioner and requested the petitioner and his family members to accept her as petitioner's wife and their daughter-in-law. However, they did not allow her by saying that she belongs to scheduled caste. Therefore, she lodged the complaint against the petitioner and his family members. Based on the said complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered the case on 02.06.2022 in Crime No.61/2022 for the above said offences. 4. Heard Sri.Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Gopalkrishna B.Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 No.1 and Sri.Deepak V.Barad, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made against the petitioner are bald and baseless. The complaint is filed only to harass the petitioner and also in order to take revenge and pressurize him to accept her as his wife. Since the complaint is filed to take vengeance against the petitioner, the case against the petitioner has to be quashed. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that petitioner had deceived the complainant stating that he would marry her. As she became pregnant, he married her in order to escape from the clutches of the criminal case. Thereafter, she gave birth to a female child. Later, he left her and joined the company of his parents by deserting the complainant. The act of committing sexual intercourse without consent would amount to rape. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 Therefore, the ingredients of Section 376 of IPC would be attracted. The other provisions mentioned in the charge sheet has to be considered and dealt with in accordance with law. Therefore, it is not appropriate to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition. 7. Similarly, the learned High Court Government Pleader adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and he further submitted that there are materials to show that the petitioner has committed offences which are heinous in nature and case against the petitioner has to be tried in a full-fledged trial. Hence, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, before adverting to the facts of the case, it is appropriate to refer to the position of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Pratap Singh Rana - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in (2024)8 SCC 313 at paragraphs-30 and 31 has held as under: “30. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] , this Court after examining Section 90IPC held as follows : (SCC p. 198, para 17) “17. Thus, Section 90 though does not define “consent”, but describes what is not “consent”. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. If the consent is given by the complainant under misconception of fact, it is vitiated. Consent for the purpose of Section 375 requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act, but also after having fully exercised the choice between resistance and assent. Whether there was any consent or not is to be ascertained only on a careful study of all relevant circumstances.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 31. This Court also examined the interplay between Section 375IPC and Section 90IPC in the context of consent in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 903] , and held that consent with respect to Section 375IPC involves an active understanding of the circumstances, actions and consequences of the proposed act. An individual who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various alternative actions (or inaction) as well as the various possible consequences flowing from such action (or inaction), consents to such action. After deliberating upon the various case laws, this Court summed up the legal position as under : (SCC p. 620, para 18) “18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the “consent” of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.” 9. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it emerges that “consent” of a woman with respect to Section 375 of IPC must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act. 10. Having considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, it is relevant to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 refer to the present case for consideration. In the present case, both the petitioner and respondent No.2 who were working in D-Mart at Bengaluru, developed intimacy and decided to marry and they were staying together in a rented house. He is stated to have promised her that he would marry her and on the pretext of said promise, he committed sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. Consequently, she became pregnant and she insisted him to marry her. On 14.02.2020, he married her and thereafter, both went to the native of the complainant for the purpose of delivering a baby. She gave birth to a child and thereafter, he is stated to have gone out of her house and he did not return inspite of her repeated demand etc. On 01.06.2022, when she is stated to have gone to the native place of the petitioner, the incident of quarrel had taken place and they insulted her that she belongs to scheduled caste and she would not be allowed inside the house either as daughter-in-law or wife of the petitioner. Initially, complaint came to be registered against seven members. However, after the investigation, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 while filing the charge sheet, except the petitioner all the family members were dropped. 11. Having gone through the facts of the case and also after having gone through the averments of the complaint and the charge sheet, it emerges that though the complainant has made certain allegations against the petitioner that he had sexual intercourse with her with an intention to cheat her, the fact remains that, the petitioner married her on 14.02.2020 and thereafter, he accompanied her to go to her native place for delivering a baby. After the delivery of the complainant, he left the place saying that his father was not feeling well therefore, he wants to go to his native place. Merely because, the petitioner did not return to the house of the complainant inspite of several efforts made by her, that itself cannot be the ground to invoke the provisions of Section 376 of IPC. The act of consensual sex between the parties cannot be at the later stage converted it into an offence under Section 376 of IPC. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 12. As regards the other offences are concerned, even though she made several allegations against all the accused persons stating that they have quarreled with her and insulted her by naming her caste, during the investigation, the said allegations are considered as baseless and other accused against whom she made allegations were dropped from the charge sheet. The petitioner is also standing on the same footing as that of the other accused who have been dropped in the charge sheet. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that based on the baseless and bald allegations made against the petitioner, a case need not be proceeded. Therefore, it is appropriate to quash the entire proceedings instead of quashing the particular provision. 13. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2477 CRL.P No. 200404 of 2025 The entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.5149/2024 (Old Spl. (AC) No.1111/2022) pending on the file of III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (sitting at Sindhanur) against the petitioner are quashed. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT:PK