- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125872026 NC: 2026:KHC:47876 CRL.P No. 2711 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2711 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MR.ASHOKA B., S/O LATE BHIMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. MYSAVALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJARAM S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMSI POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.DEEPTHI ALVA, HCGP FOR R-1) Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125872026 NC: 2026:KHC:47876 CRL.P No. 2711 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 BNNS PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 22.11.2025 IN SPL.C.NO.219/2025 PASSED BY THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376AB AND 506 OF IPC AND SEC.4 AND 6 OF THE POCSO ACT, 2012. 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, sole accused is before the Court calling in question the proceedings in Special Case No. 219 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 376AB and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short). 2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim who was 10 years old was sexually exploited and - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125872026 NC: 2026:KHC:47876 CRL.P No. 2711 of 2026 abused by the petitioner. Statements during the investigation were recorded and the statement indicated that the petitioner was directly involved in the crime so alleged. Based upon the statements so recorded and investigation conducted, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner then files an application seeking his discharge from the case, on the score that neither the complaint nor the charge sheet did make out any offence. The charge sheet is filed only on the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. They are divergent and the crime was registered after 2 years of the alleged incident. The discharge application is rejected by the concerned Court in terms of its order dated 22-11-2025. It is this that drives the petitioner-accused to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Sri Rajaram S, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt Deepthi Alva, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the incident that is narrated has not even happened. The statement recorded by the Investigating Officer at the time of - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125872026 NC: 2026:KHC:47876 CRL.P No. 2711 of 2026 investigation does not directly point at the petitioner. There is no record to show that the petitioner had invited the complainant and had indulged in the alleged crime. In the light of no material evidence, the offence under POCSO Act cannot even be sustained. He would further submit that the complainant has sought to register the complaint after 2 years from the date of the alleged incident. He would seek quashment of the proceedings pending in Spl. Case No.219 of 2025. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of indulging in aggravated sexual intercourse upon the victim who is 10 years old and the petitioner being a 44 years old man. She would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125872026 NC: 2026:KHC:47876 CRL.P No. 2711 of 2026 7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. A complaint comes to be registered by the complainant herself, a child of 10 years of age. The gist of the complaint is as follows: "ಸದ ಪಕರಣದ ಾ ದುಾರಾದ ಕು|| XXXXX XXXXX 09 ವಷ 11 ಂಗಳ ಇವಳ ವಗ ಾಲೂ"ಕು #ೖಸವ%&ೕ (ಾಮದ *ಾ+ಾ,ದು-, ಇವಳ ತಮ/ ತಂೆ ಾ1ಯ ಒಟು5 ಮೂರು ಜನ ಮಕ8ಳ9" :ಯ ಮಗ;ಾ,ರುಾ<;ೆ. ಕು|| XXXXXಳ #ೖಸವ%&ೕ (ಾಮದ9" 04 ?ೇ ತರಗ @ಾAಾ, 05 ?ೇ ತರಗ(ೆ BೋಗCೇDಾದ ಸಮಯದ9" ಈ(ೆ 2 ವಷ ದ :ಂೆ FಾGೆ(ೆ ರHೆ ಇದ- ಸಮಯದ9" ಇವರ ಮ?ೆಯ ಮುಂೆ *ಾಸ*ಾ,ರುವ ಅFೆJೕಕ ಎಂಬುವವನು ಕು।। XXXX%(ೆ NಮO ೆ(ೆದುDೊಂಡು Cಾ ಎಂದು ಹಣ Dೊಡು<ದ-ನು. ಆ ಸಮಯದ9" ಆತನ Bೆಂಡ ಕೂ9 DೆಲಸDೆ8, Bೋಗು<ದ-ರು, ಆತನ 02 ಮಕ8ಳ BಾAೆ5O ನ9" ಓದು<ರುಾ<ೆ, ಕು|| XXXXಳ ಅFೆJೕಕನ ಮ?ೆಯ ಒಳಗTೆ Bೋದ ನಂತರ ಅFೆJೕಕನು Cಾ,ಲು ಮುUVDೊಂಡು ಕು|| XXXXXXಳ Dೈ :Wದು ಎ;ೆದುDೊಂಡು ನಡು ಮ?ೆ(ೆ ಕೆದುDೋಡು Bೋ, ಅವಳ #ೕGೆ Gೈಂ,ಕ ೌಜ ನY ZಾWರುಾ<?ೆ, ಈ N[ಾರವನು\ ಕು|| XXXXXಳ 02 ವಷ ದ :ಂೆ ತನ\ ಾ1 XXXX(ೆ %+ಾಗ ಅವರು ತನ\ ಗಂಡ XXXX](ೆ %+ದು-, XXXರವರು ಊನ9" ಮಾ ೆ ಪFೆ\ ಎಂದು ಈ N[ಾರವನು\ ಾಗೂ %+ರ9ಲ". ನಂತರ ಅFೆJೕಕ?ಾ_8 ನು ?ಾನು ೊಂದೆ Dೊ`5ರುವ N[ಾರವನು\ ಾಗೂ BೇಳCೇಡ*ೆಂದು ಕು|| XXXXX%(ೆ Bೆದ+ರುಾ<?ೆ. ಕು||XXXXಳ Bೆದ ಈ N[ಾರವನು\ ಾಗೂ Bೇಳೆ ಸುಮ/?ಾ,ರುಾ<;ೆ. ಈ ಘಟ?ೆ 2023 ರ #ೕ ಂಗಳ9" ಶ]*ಾರ ಮತು< ರN*ಾರ ನTೆcದು- ಕು|| XXXXX%(ೆ c?ಾಂಕ ?ೆನ ರುವdcಲ" ಆದ-ಂದ #ೕಲ8ಂಡ ಆFೆJೕಕ?ಾ_8 ಈತನ #ೕGೆ Dಾನೂನು ಕಮ Dೈ(ೊಳ&CೇDೆಂದು ಕು|| XXXXಳ ]ೕWದ Bೇ%Dೆ ದೂನ #ೕೆ(ೆ ಾಖ9+ದ ಪ.ವ.ವರc." The gist of the complaint is that the accused called the victim inside the house, locked the room and committed the act of alleged rape. The statement of the complainant recorded is as follows: “c?ಾಂಕ 24/03/2025 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125872026 NC: 2026:KHC:47876 CRL.P No. 2711 of 2026 ?ಾನು ಈ #ೕಲ8ಂಡ N;ಾಸದ9" *ಾಸ*ಾ,ರುೆ<ೕ?ೆ. ನಮ/ ತಂೆ ಾ1(ೆ 03 ಜನ ಮಕ8%ದು- 2 Bೆಣುg ಮತು< 01 ಗಂಡು ಮಗು ಇದು- ?ಾನು ನನ\ ತಂೆ(ೆ :ಮಗ;ಾ,ರುೆ<ೕ?ೆ ?ಾನು ಸರDಾ hಯ @ಾಥjಕ FಾGೆ #ೖಸವ%&ೕಯ9" 04?ೇ ತರಗ @ಾAಾ, 05?ೇ ತರಗ BೋಗCೇಕು ?ಾನು ಈಗ 02 ವಷ ದ :ಂೆ ನನ(ೆ FಾGೆ ರHೆಯ ಸಮಯದ9" ನಮ/ ಮ?ೆಯ ಮುಂೆ ಇರುವ ಅFೆJೕಕ ಎಂಬುವವನು ನನ(ೆ NಮO ೆೆದುDೊಂಡು Cಾ ಎಂದು ನನ(ೆ ಹಣ Dೊಡು<ದ-ನು ನಮ/ ಮ?ೆ1ಂದ :ಂcನ ಕTೆ Bೋ, NಮO ೆ(ೆದುDೊಂಡು ಬರುೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದ9" ಅವರ Bೆಂಡ ಕೂ9 DೆಲಸDೆ8 Bೋಗು<ದ-ರು ಅವ(ೆ 02 ಮಕ8ಳ BಾAೆ5ೕOನ9" ಓದು<ಾ-ೆ ?ಾನು ಒಳಗTೆ Bೋ,ದ ನಂತರ ಅFೆJೕಕನು Cಾ,ಲು ಮುUVDೊಂಡು ನನ(ೆ Dೈ :Wದು ಎ;ೆದುDೊಂಡು ನಡು ಮ?ೆಯ9" ಕೆದುDೊಂಡು ನನ\ #ೕGೆ Gೈಂ,ಕ ೌಜ ನY ZಾWರುಾ<?ೆ ಈ N[ಾರ 02 ವಷ ದ :ಂೆ ನಮ/ ಾ1ಾದ XXXXX ಅವ(ೆ %+ಾಗ ನಮ/ ಾ1 ನಮ/ ತಂೆಯವಾದ XXXX ರವ(ೆ %+ದು- ನಮ/ ತಂೆ ಊನ9" Zಾಾ kೆ ಪFೆ\ ಎಂದು ಈ N[ಾರವನು\ ಾಗೂ %+ರ9ಲ". ನಂತರ ಅFೆJೕಕ ?ಾಯ8ನು ನನ(ೆ ?ಾನು ೊಂದೆ Dೊ`5ರುವ N[ಾರವನು\ ಾಗೂ BೇಳCೇಡ ಎಂದು ನನ(ೆ Bೆದ+ದನು ?ಾನೂ Bೆದ ಈ N[ಾರವನು\ ಾಗೂ Bೇಳೆ ಸುಮ/?ಾೆ ಈ :ಂೆ 2023 ರ9" ನTೆcರುವ #ೕ ಂಗಳ ಈ ಘಟ?ೆ ಶ]*ಾರ ಮತು< ರN*ಾರ ನTೆcರುತ<ೆ. ನನ(ೆ c?ಾ೦ಕವd ?ೆನ ಲ" ನನ(ೆ ೊಂದೆ ZಾWದ ಅFೆJೕಕ ?ಾಯ8ನ #ೕGೆ Dಾನೂನು ಕಮ ಜರು,ಸCೇDೆಂದು ನನ\ ಾ1ಾದ XXXX ರವರ ಸಮmಮದ9" ಈ Bೇ%Dೆಯನು\ Cಾಲhಯರ Cಾಲಮಂcರದ9" ]ೕWರುತ<*ೆ. ನನ\ ಸಮmಮ ಸ:/- ಎn ಐ ದಸೂ<ರ ಸ:/- Wpc 1732 ಓದGಾ1ತು ಸ1ೆ ಸ:/- XXXXXX ಸ:/- (?ೊಂದ Cಾಲh ಾ1ಯ ಸ:) c?ಾಂಕ 24/5/2025 ರಂದು 12.00 ಎಂ ಗಂpೆ1ಂದ 1.00 ಎಂ ಗಂpೆಯವೆ(ೆ ವಗ Cಾಲhಯರ Cಾಲಮಂcರದ9" ?ೊಂದ Cಾಲhಯ Bೇ%Dೆಯನು\ ಪTೆದುDೊಂಡು 1- 45 ಎಂ ಗಂpೆ(ೆ qಾrೆ(ೆ *ಾ@ಾn ಬಂದು ಮುಂcನ ಕಮDಾ8, qಾrಾsDಾಯವ(ೆ ]ೕWರುೆ<. ಸ:/- - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125872026 NC: 2026:KHC:47876 CRL.P No. 2711 of 2026 ಎn ಐ c?ಾಂಕ: 24/5/2025 ರಂದು 1-45 ಎಂ (ೆ PSICO @ಾವ Cಾ1 ರವರು qಾrೆಯ9" ]ೕWದ ?ೊಂದ Cಾಲhಯ Bೇ%Dೆ ದೂರನು\ +tೕಕ+ qಾrಾ ಸಂ 126/2025 ಕಲಂ 376(ಎ) & ( ) 506 ಐ + ಸ:ತ ಕಲಂ 04 & 06 PSICO Act 2012 ೕಾY ಪಕರಣ ಾಖ9+ರುೆ< ಸ:/- u9ೕn ಇv@ೆಕ5w ಕುಂ u9ೕn qಾrೆ ವಗ xGೆ" 577423" The police complete investigation and based upon the statement of witnesses, file a charge sheet against the petitioner. The summary of the charge sheet reads as follows: "ಈ Dೇ+ನ ಸಂyಪ< Aಾಾಂಶ ಕಲಂ 376(ಎ)&( ), ಐ + ಸ:ತ ಕಲಂ 4 & 6 , uೕDೊvೕ Dಾz- 2012 ೋ{ಾೋಪಣ ಪ`5ಯ Dಾಲಂ ನಂಬw 12 ರ9" ಕಂಡ ಆೋ ತನು ಈ(ೆ 02 ವಷ ಗಳ :ಂೆ 2023 ?ೇ Aಾ9ನ9" ಆತನ ಮ?ೆಯ9" ಾರೂ ಇಲ"ದ ಸಮಯದ9" ಸದ ಪಕರಣದ ?ೊಂದ Cಾಲhಾದ Aಾy 01 ರವ(ೆ ಹಣ Dೊಟು5 NಮO ೆ(ೆದುDೊಂಡು ಬರಲು Bೇ%ದು-, ನಂತರ ಸದ Cಾಲh NಮO ೆ(ೆದುDೊಂಡು ಸದ ಆೋ ತನ ಮ?ೆಯ ಒಳಗTೆ Bೋದ ನಂತರ ಆತನು Cಾ,ಲು ಮುUVDೊಂಡು ಅವಳ Dೈ :Wದು ಎ;ೆದುDೊಂಡು ಮ?ೆಯ BಾO (ೆ ಕೆದುDೊಂಡು Bೋ, ಅವಳ #ೕGೆ ಬಲವಂತ*ಾ, Gೈಂ,ಕ ಸಂಪಕ ZಾW, ನಂತರ ಈ N[ಾರವನು\ ಾಗೂ BೇಳCೇಡ*ೆಂದು ಸದ Cಾಲh(ೆ CೆದDೆ Bಾhರುವdದು, ಇದುವೆ,ನ ತ]}ೆ1ಂದ Aಾೕಾದ #ೕೆ(ೆ ಸದ ಆೋ ತನ Nರುದ~ #ೕಲ8ಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ೕತY ZಾನY ?ಾYಾಲಯDೆ8 ಸ9"+ದ ೋ{ಾೋಪಣ ಪ`5." A perusal at the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet would indicate that the petitioner-accused in a closed - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125872026 NC: 2026:KHC:47876 CRL.P No. 2711 of 2026 door, pulls the victim complainant and has forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. As observed, the petitioner is 42 years and the victim was 8 years at the time of the incident. Therefore, the offences under Section 376AB and POCSO have sprung. 8. The petitioner files an application seeking discharge on the score that the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC are the only the basis for filing the charge sheet and the DNA report would not support the case of the prosecution. The concerned Court rejects the discharge application by order dated 22-11-2025, on the following reasons: "REASONS Point No.1:- 15. It is the case of the prosecution that accused committed the offenses punishable under Sec. 376AB, 506 of IPC and the offenses punishable under sections 6 of Protection of Children Sexual Offenses Act, 2012. Prosecution alleged that accused committed the above said offense against minor victim girl who is under the age of 12 years. From the prosecution papers it is clear that informant being the minor victim informed the police that she had been sexually abused and exploited by the accused. The prosecution papers reveals that the I.O during the investigation recorded the statements of the - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125872026 NC: 2026:KHC:47876 CRL.P No. 2711 of 2026 alleged victim and the statements of other witnesses. The said recorded statements denotes that accused directly involved in the crimes alleged. The statement of the alleged victim girl recorded under Sec. 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C are almost supplementary to each other. Further there are materials on record to show that accused invited alleged victim girl. The information furnished, FIR registered, statements of the witnesses recorded, the mahazars conducted, the documents secured discloses that accused involved in the crimes alleged committed against the alleged victim. 16. It is the case of the accused that there is a long delay in furnishing the information and there is no valid explanation. It is true that after a gap years together from the date of alleged incident, the matter has been reported to the police. But the prosecution as alleged by the Spl. Public Prosecutor may give the explanation for the same in the trial. It is undisputed fact that the Magistrate recorded the statement of the alleged victim girl. The said statement of alleged victim girl is almost similar to the statement of alleged victim girl made before the Women Police Officer. It is not the case of the accused that as on the day of the recording of the said statement, the alleged victim was a major. When the alleged victim being a minor makes statements before I.O and before Magistrate regarding commission of some offenses against her, unless legal scrutiny of the said statements it is not possible to conclude that the wrong doer is an innocent. The legal scrutiny of the statements can be done only by holding the trial and hence, till conclusion of the trial it is not possible to say that the recorded statements of the victim girl are false. Hence, at this stage, it is not possible to say that no offense was committed against the minor victim girl. Accused not seriously disputed that the alleged victim girl is not his neighbouer and not came to in his house during few nights. 17. Further accused contended that the medical records not in favour of prosecution It is needless to say that the report of DNA analysis is just an opinion of an expert, and not a conclusive proof. The legal scrutiny of the said medical report is necessary and that can be - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125872026 NC: 2026:KHC:47876 CRL.P No. 2711 of 2026 achieved only by holding the trial. Therefore, at this stage, it is not possible to hold that there are no grounds to frame the charges against the accused for the alleged offenses. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Crl Appeal No. 3175/2024 in the matter of the State of Orissa v/s Prathima Behera analysed its earlier verdict laid down in a case reported in (1986) 2 SCC 716 in the matter of R.S. Nayak v/s A.R. Anthulay and another. In the said case the Hon'ble top Court of India observed that The legal position is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court is not to examine and assess in details the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of materials to establish the offenses alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge, the Court has to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima-facie case of the commission of the offenses alleged has been made out against the accused persons. 19. The order of Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the Criminal Appeal No. 3175/2024 makes the above said ratio is still suitable and valid. In view of the said ratio/verdict, the application of the accused is lacks in the merits. In other words, accused not established the grounds to discharge him from the prosecution. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in 2025 AIAR (CRL) 474 in the matter of Jaspal Singh Kaural v/s State of NCT of Delhi and others held that- It is trite law that at the time of framing the charge a mini trial is not possible and the trial Court has to proceed with the material brought on record by the prosecution and determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offense alleged. In this case, the information/statements furnished to the police, FIR issued, little bit medical records etc, being part of the charge sheet says that the offenses alleged have been committed against the victim - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125872026 NC: 2026:KHC:47876 CRL.P No. 2711 of 2026 girl. Therefore, it is not possobile to hold that there are no grounds to frame charges against the accused. Thus, discharge of the accused is not possible. Accordingly for the reasons as stated above, my answer to the point no. 1 is in the Negative. Point No.2:- 21. In view of my above said answer, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER The application filed under Section 250 of BNSS, 2023 by the accused is hereby rejected." 9. If the complaint, the summary of the charge sheet and the order on the application for discharge are read in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is the necessity of a trial in the case at hand. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial. There is no warrant of interference in a case of this nature in excise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22