- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31528 CRL.P No. 8297 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8297 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SOORAJ GUPTA S/O SHIV MURAT GUPTA AGE 30 YEARS, NO.7, NO. 202, 1st CROSS, MSR LAYOUT, HONGASANDRA, BANGALORE- 560 068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY HULIMAVU POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. RITIKA SINGH, D/O, DINESH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO. C502, GODREJ NUTURE, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-1, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 100. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, ADVOCATE FOR R1) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31528 CRL.P No. 8297 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 22.05.2026 IN SC.NO.1351/2025, PENDING BEFORE THE LIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 OF IPC AND ON APPLICATION FILED U/S 227 OF Cr.P.C. OR U/S 250 OF BNSS FILED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner, the sole accused in SC.No.1351/2025 is before the Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court, which rejects an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.' for short) seeking his discharge from the array of accused in an offence that has become punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) for the act of the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri. Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31528 CRL.P No. 8297 of 2026 3. Facts adumbrated are as follows: It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.03.2024 at around 11.00 p.m., the complainant visits the place of a common friend where the alleged incident takes place. The alleged incident is that the petitioner is sole accused now takes head massage from the complainant for about 90 minutes, gives her whiskey and after sipping whiskey, the petitioner takes the complainant to another apartment and commits the act of sexual assault. The next morning when the complainant was found in a state where she realised that she had been sexually assaulted, registers a complaint on 08.04.2024, albeit after certain delay. Delay of about 8 days after the said incident, this becomes a crime in Crime No.148/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The charge sheet led the petitioner to file an application seeking his discharge from the case on the score that there are several lacunae in the conduct of investigation by the prosecution. The concerned Court refuses to discharge the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of the entire proceedings. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31528 CRL.P No. 8297 of 2026 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complainant is a mehendi artist, she came to apply mehendi and also gave head massage to the petitioner, then sipped whiskey and after that it was only consensual acts between the two and not sexual assault, as is obtaining under Section 375 of the IPC, for it to become an offence under Section 376 of the IPC. He would further submit that the complainant has volunteered herself not to get medical examination after the incident and statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is also not recorded. Be that as it may. 5. All these contentions of the petitioners are shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact. It is an offence of rape that is alleged. The charge sheet so filed against the petitioner pursuant to investigation would clearly pin down the petitioner for acts that would become the ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC, albeit prima facie. The summary of the charge sheet reads as follows: "17.
ೇನ ಸಂಪ ಾ ಾಂಶ ಈ ೋಾ ೋಪಾ ಪ
ಾಲಂ 12 ರರುವ ಆ ೋ ಮತು ಾ-2 ಮತು ಾ-3 ರವರ ಒಬ"#$ೊಬ"ರು ೆ%ೕ&ತ ಾ'ದು), ಾ-2 ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಾ-1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31528 CRL.P No. 8297 of 2026 ರವರು ಆ ೋ$ೆ ಪ#ಚಯ-ಾ'ರು.ಾ ೆ. /0ಾಂಕ :- 25/03/2024 ರಂದು 1ೋ2 ಹಬ"ದ ಪ4ಯಕ ಾ-2 ರವರು ತನ% ೆ%ೕ&ತ ಾದ ಾ-3 ಮತು ಆ ೋ$ೆ .ಾನು -ಾಸ-ಾ'zÀÝ 5ಾ6 $ೆ ನ 5ಾ7 8ಾ9ೋಣ ಬ;% ಎಂದು ಕ ೆ/ದು), ಅದರಂ.ೆ ಆ ೋಯು ಾ>4 ಸು8ಾರು 11-30 ಗಂ@ೆಯ ಾ-2 ರವರು -ಾಸ-ಾ'ದ) 5ಾA6 $ೆ ಬಂಾಗ ಅ$ೆ ಈ$ಾಗBೇ ಾ-3 ರವರು ಬಂ/ದು), ನಂತರ ಾ-2 ರವರ ೆ%ೕ&.ೆCಾದ ಾ-1 ರವರು ಸಹ Dೊ.ೆCಾಗು.ಾ ೆ. ಾ-1 ರವರು ಾ- 2 ರವರ ಮ0ೆ$ೆ ಬಂದು .ಾನು ಧ#ದ ಬ@ೆಯನು% ಬದBಾF ಾ-2 ರವರ ೕ ಷ67 ಮತು Hಾ6I7 ಅನು% ಧ#
ೊಂಡು ನಂತರ ಾ-1, ಾ-2, ಾ-3 ಮತು ಆ ೋ Dೊ.ೆಯKೕ ಕು2ತು
ೊಂಡು ಮಧA5ಾನ ಎಲರು ಮಧA5ಾನ 8ಾಡಲು 5ಾ4ರಂLಸು.ಾ ೆ. /0ಾಂಕ 26/03/2024 ರಂದು Mೆಳ'ನ Dಾವ ಾ-2 ರವರು ಮರು/ನ
ೆಲಸ
ೆO 1ೋಗMೇ
ಾ'ರುವPಾ' 1ೇ2 ಸQಳ/ಂದ ಎದು) 1ೋ' ಮಲ'
ೊಂRದು), ನಂತರ ಾ-1 ಾ-3 ಮತು ಆ ೋಯು ಕು2ತು
ೊಂಡು ಮಧA5ಾನ 8ಾಡು.ಾ ಕುಟುಂಬದ Tಷಯ-ಾ' 8ಾತುಕ.ೆ 8ಾಡು> ದು), &ೕ'ರು-ಾ$ೆU, ಆ ೋಯು ಆತನ $ೆಳ>Vಂ/$ೆ WೕX ನ, 8ಾತ0ಾಡು.ಾ , Dೋ ಾ' ಕೂ$ಾಡು.ಾ ಇದು), ಇದ£ÀÄß ಕಂಡ ಾ-1 ಮತು ಾ-3 ರವರು ಏ0ಾಯು ಎಂದು
ೇ2ಾಗ .ಾನು ಅಪೆ6 ಆ'ರುವPಾ' ತನ% $ೆಳ>Fಂದ MೇPÀæಅ[ 8ಾR
ೊಳ\]> ರುವPಾ' >2ರು.ಾ 0ೆ. ಈ ಸಂದಭ7ದ ಾ-3 ರವರು ಸಹ ಇ0ೊ%ಂದು Mೆ_ ರೂಂ ನ 1ೋ' ಮಲ'
ೊಳ\].ಾ ೆ. ನಂತರ ಾ-1 ರವರು ಆ ೋಯನು% ಸಮ`ಾನ 8ಾಡು.ಾ ಆತನ Dೊ.ೆಯ ಇದು), ಈ ಸಂದಭ7ದ Mೆ2$ೆU ಸು8ಾರು 5-00 ಗಂ@ೆಯ ಆ ೋಯು ಾ-1 ರವರನು% .ಾನು -ಾಸ-ಾ'ರುವ 5ಾ6 ನಂ. 202, $ೌರಮb ಸಣcಂಗಯA ಅ5ಾ67 dಂ6 10ೇ
ಾ4e, ಎಂ.ಎe.ಆf Bೇಔ6, 1ೊಂಗಸಂದ4 Mೆಂಗಳhರು ಇ$ೆ .ಎi ನಂ. 50/2024 ರ ನಮೂದು 8ಾRರುವ
ೆಎ 03 ಎಂ.ಆf 2413 0ೊಂದj ಸಂkೆAಯ ಹುಂ9ಾl ಐ-20
ಾ#ನ ಕ ೆದು
ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಾ-1 ರವರ Dೊ.ೆಯ ಅಸಭA-ಾ' ವ>7 Mೆ2$ೆU ಾ-1 ರವರ dೕBೆ ಬಲವಂತ-ಾ' ಅ.ಾAnಾರ 8ಾRರುವPದು ತ;kೆFಂದ ಧೃಡಪರುತ ೆ. ಆದ)#ಂದ ಆ ೋಯ Tರುದp ಕಲಂ 376 ಐ #ೕ.ಾA ೋಾ ೋಪಾ ಪ." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31528 CRL.P No. 8297 of 2026 It is not that the act has not happened, the petitioner also would admit that the act has happened, but would project it being consensual. While it is only a one-off situation where the petitioner has indulged in sexual intercourse with the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said that they were continuous acts of consensus. 6. It is a matter of evidence for the petitioner to come out clean in a full bloom trial as the offences in the considered view of this Court would require a trial, all the lacunae that the petitioner is wanting to project before this Court should be projected before the concerned Court. Finding no merit to entertain the subject petition, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51