- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18954 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 470 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) AND: NAGENDRA PRASAD B @ MAHENDRA S/O BILIGIRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT BILUGALI VILLAGE, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570001 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 438 BNSS) BY THE SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II, MANDYA IN S.C.NO.113/2021 AND DISCHARGING THE ACCUSED U/S 376, 420, 506 OF IPC. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18954 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. None appears for respondent though served with notice of revision petition. 2. Respondent is the accused, who has been discharged by the Court of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge – FTSC-II, Mandya in SC No.113/2021 by order dated 06.01.2024, whereby application filed under Section 227 of Cr.PC by the accused is allowed. State has preferred the present revision petition challenging the validity of the said order dated 06.01.2024. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged by the victim lady stating that respondent/accused, with a promise to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18954 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2025 marry, had forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereby he has committed offence punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 506 IPC. 4. Police after registering the case, thoroughly investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance and committed the matter to the Sessions Court for trial. The presence of the accused was secured before the Sessions Court. 5. Accused-respondent filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.PC contending that, there was no forcible sexual intercourse, and the physical relationship between the accused and the victim lady was consensual in nature and therefore, he is to be discharged. It was also contended, that victim lady has not stated about the forceful sexual intercourse nor there was any promise before the sexual act, nor there was any threat or inducement and as such, no charges can be framed against him for the alleged offences. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18954 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2025 6. Prosecution opposed the said application and learned Session Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the discharge application inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.12 to 14 as under: “12. The learned counsel for accused referred citations reported in: 200015/2014 between Basanna and others vs State Through Women P.S, Gulbarga, where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka opined that "the petitioner moved an application U/sec.482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the final report. But since the final report is filed, it is opined to plead for discharge U/sec.227 of Cr.P.C". 2019(4) Crimes 487 SC (Supreme Court of India) between Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and another, "Section 482 Exercising of inherent jurisdiction Section 482 is an overriding section which saves the inherent powers of the court to advance the cause of justice- Under Section 482 inherent jurisdiction of the court can be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr.PC; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice- Powers of court under Section 482 are wide and court is vested with a significant amount of discretion to decide whether or not to exercise them - Court should be guarded in use of its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18954 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2025 as it denies the prosecution opportunity to establish its case through investigation and evidence. To establish a false promise, maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it - Consent of a woman under Section 375 is vitiated on the ground of misconception of fact where such misconception was the basis for her choosing to engage in the said act - Consent of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards proposed act. 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 - False promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act". 13. Appreciating the above facts to the case in hand also herein in the complaint itself she admits she was in love with accused and narrates the fact in respect of sexual act, but there she has not said that prior to the act of sexual relation, he promised her and thereafter taken her consent and did the 'act' and even after the 'act' also no promise is given. Thereafter she narrates about there is a galata occurred between the family after the death of her grand father. Her grand father died at Belugali village and her maternal uncle’s wife leaves her uncle. So, on this reason rift between two families, Even then the accused promised her of proceeding for marriage talks looking at the situation. So, the rifts arose after incident of sexual intercourse. So, at the time of sexual - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18954 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2025 intercourse, there is no intention of cheating the victim. So, no promise in view of the same, it corroborates, there is no prima-facie material to proceed against the accused. Accused counsel referred Crl.P.No.100473/2019 between Chandrashekhar Irappa Noolin and others vs The State of Karnataka and another, wherein it is held that: "Though several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused, it is for the learned Sessions Judge to consider those contentions regarding discharge therein, if any such application is filed. The appropriate remedy is available under section 227 of Cr.P.C. The provisions of Sections 227 and 228 has to be exercised by the Trial Court", 2022(1) Kar. L.R 265 between Venkatesh and others vs State of Karnataka and another, wherein it is held that: "Promise of marriage - Proof for- Criminal Intention - promise of marriage and breach of contract will not attract the provisions of sections 417 and 420 of IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, the Police registered a case on 03.05.2020 wherein, it is alleged that the about 8 years back she came to know petitioner No.1 and both of them fell in love with each other and petitioner No.1 agreed to marry her. Subsequently, he left her and said to have married. some other lady as his family members supported his marriage with some other lady. Therefore, she filed a complaint against petitioner No.1 and his other family members for having cheated her. There is similarity to the facts of this case. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18954 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2025 Here while discussing the Hon'ble Supreme Court also has categorically held in the case of S.W.Palanitkar And Others Vs. State Of Bihar And Another reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241 at paragraph No.11 that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to any criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction and the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Sri.D.Ramesh Sinha Vs. State of Karnataka that as a promise of marriage and breach of contract will not attract the provisions of sections 417 and 420 of IPC. Such being the case, continuing the proceedings or investigation against the petitioners is abuse of process of law”. Crl.R.P.No.1046/2018 between State of Karnataka vs R.Punith @ Raghavendra wherein it is held that "Sheet disclosed that the complainant had consented to sexual relationship by the resplendent - accused and therefore, held that the ingredients of sections 376 and 420 of IPC were not found in the case. It also held that framing of charges and conducting of trial would only become an empty formality and result in wastage of time and hence, discharged. Crl.R.P. No.1046/2018 As rightly contended by the learned Amicus Curiae, any transaction between two spouses cannot be construed as an attempt to defraud the other. In that view of the matter as rightly held by the Sessions court, the conduct of a trial would only result in an empty formality and also wastage of time and therefore, trial Court was justified in discharging the accused". Facts clearly applies to the case in hand, as accused and victim are in relationship for 3 years. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18954 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2025 Crl.R.P.No.638/2016 between Prema Latha Diwakar vs State of Karnataka and another, wherein it is held that "The application filed under section 227 of Cr.P.C, the learned Trial Judge ought not to have acquitted the accused. Since the entire charge sheet stood vitiated and the proceedings in furtherance to such a charge sheet has been held as nonest, there is no necessity for this Court to consider the argument on behalf of the victim in this regard any further”. 2023 Cr.R.689 (Kant.) between Mallikarjun Desai Goudar vs State of Karnataka and others wherein it is held that: "Relationship between petitioner and respondent was consensual If it is consensual, it cannot be alleged that it would become an ingredient of rape under section 375 of I.P.C, for it to become punishable under section 376 of I.P.C- Charge sheet insofar as offences punishable under sections 376, 376(2)(n), 354, 406 and 504 of IPC are concerned, stand quashed charge sheet insofar as offences punishable under sections 32320 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C are concerned, they stand sustained". 2021(2) AICLR 256 (S.C) between Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs Sate of Uttar Pradesh and another wherein it is held that: "Alleged that accused committed rape on prosecutrix on pretext of promise to marry-No allegation to the effect that promise to marry given to girl was false at inception-contents of FIR show subsequent refusal on part of accused to marry girl which gave rise to registration of FIR-Offence not prove d-Charge sheet quashed". - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18954 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2025 14. More over to be on safer side this Court issued notice to the victim who is present before the Court and submitted in writing that she is withdrawing her allegations against the accused without any force or pressure. So, it prima-facie shows, trial is only empty formality and wastage of time. When there is no prima- facie ingredients of force, promise, there is no scope for adjudication. Hence, in the interest of equity and to save precious time of Court. I hold the above points No.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative. 15. Point No.3: In view of the points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Application filed by accused u/s.227 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and accused is discharged.” 7. Being aggrieved by the same, State has preferred the present revision petition. 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that, the alleged consent for the sexual intercourse between the accused and the victim lady is on account of promise to marry and when there was no - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18954 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2025 promise fulfilled, accused is liable for trial for the offences under Section 376, 420 and 506 of IPC, which has not been properly considered by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order and sought for allowing the revision. 9. Respondent having been served and unrepresented, this Court perused the material on record meticulously in the light of the argument put forth on behalf of the State. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that, in the statement of the victim lady recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the victim lady has not stated about the forceful sexual intercourse, nor there was any promise to marry before the sexual intercourse has taken place and there is no threat or inducement exerted by the accused for the sexual intercourse he had with the victim lady. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18954 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2025 11. Victim lady being the major in age, knew the consequences of having a physical relationship with a person, who is not her husband. 12. Therefore, the theory of consent that is put forward by the accused is evident on record, whereby no offence is made out under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of IPC is the opinion recorded by the learned Sessions Judge using discretionary power vested in it. 13. On the appreciation of the prima facie material placed on record including the statement of the victim lady under Section 164 of Cr.PC, learned Trial Magistrate has opined that materials are not sufficient to frame charges and proceed with the case. 14. Thus, this Court under the limited revisional jurisdiction, does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 15. Hence, the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18954 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2025 ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 44