- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15875 WP No. 28617 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28617 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. HANEESH / ANEES IBRAHIM S/O LATE MOHAMMED AMEER AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS R/AT NO.8 AND 8/1, MADAR SAB LANE NALBAND WADI, COTTONPET, BANGALORE-560053 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY COTTONPET POLICE STATION BANGALORE 560053 REPTD. BY ITS S.P.P. HIGH COURT, BANGALORE. 2. SMT. JABEEN TAJ W/O MOHAMMED NASEER AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.8 AND 8/1, MADAR SAB LANE NALBAND WADI, COTTONPET, BANGALORE-560053 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15875 WP No. 28617 of 2025 CHARGESHEET DATED 15.11.2014 OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 354(A) OF IPC ANNEXURE-E FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN C.C. NO. 34120/2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE 5TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the charge sheet filed in Crime No.403/2013 by the respondent No.1 for offence punishable under Section 354(A) of IPC and the order of the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru taking cognizance and registering C.C No.34120/2014 and issuing process. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 had informed respondent No.1 on 24.11.2013 that the petitioner had raped her in her house on 16.11.2013. The respondent No.1 registered Crime No.403/2013 for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and took up investigation and later filed a charge sheet for an offence punishable under Section 354(A) of IPC. Taking into account the charge sheet - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15875 WP No. 28617 of 2025 and the materials produced therewith, the trial Court took cognizance and issued process. (ii) In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 had filed an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C to alter the charge to an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 377 of IPC. The said application was filed on 28.05.2015 which was rejected by the trial Court in terms of an order dated 23.02.2023. 3. Being aggrieved by the charge sheet filed and the order taking cognizance and issuing process, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 has given conflicting statements in the information furnished by her to the respondent No.1 where she alleged that the petitioner had raped her but in the application filed under Section 216 of Cr,P.C, she stated that she was raped from 2011 to 2013 by the petitioner. He therefore contends that the respondent No. 2 has foisted a false case against the petitioner and hence, it is an abuse of process of law and therefore, jurisdiction may be exercised under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings. He also contends that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15875 WP No. 28617 of 2025 the petitioner is now 89 years old and he is forced to face unwanted prosecution and therefore prays that the impugned prosecution be set at naught. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that evidence in the case is underway and the case is at the stage of cross-examination of the respondent No.2(PW3). He therefore submits that no interference is warranted in this petition. 6. I have considered submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 7. A perusal of the complaint submitted by respondent No.2 and the consequent charge sheet and the materials filed along with it show the commission of an offence punishable under Section 354(A) of IPC. The trial Court after perusing the material had rightly taken cognizance and had issued process. The trial Court did not take timely steps to consider the application filed by the respondent No.2 for altering the charge and is procrastinated for over 8 years. However, this cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. The petitioner who was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15875 WP No. 28617 of 2025 aware of the proceedings in the year 2014 has not taken any steps from then on till date and therefore cannot take advantage of his advanced age to contend that the proceedings have to be quashed on the ground that the respondent No. 2 has foisted a false criminal case. 8. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted in this petition. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE UN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35