- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18829 CRL.P No. 2480 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 2479 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2480 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2479 OF 2019 IN CRL.P No. 2480/2019 BETWEEN: RAMAKRISHNA S/O. HANUMANTHEGOWDA NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT KARIKYATANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONAKERE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE) AND: SUNITHA D/O RAMAKRISHNA NOW AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RATHNA K NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT KARIKYATANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONAKERE HOBLI NAGAMANALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432 &RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER 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:18829 CRL.P No. 2480 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 2479 of 2019 PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER DATED 20.09.2017 IN C.MISC.NO.77/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NAGAMANGALA UNDER SECTION 125 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. IN CRL.P NO. 2479/2019 BETWEEN: RAMAKRISHNA S/O HANUMANTHEGOWDA NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT KARIKYATANAHALLLI VILLAGE HONAKERE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571432 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF NAGAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION MANDYA DISTRICT-571432 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN S.C.NO.93/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA AND EXPUNGE THE REMARKS MADE AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.04.2017 VIDE PORTION OF PARA NO.31 THAT "HOWEVER SINCE THE PATERNITY OF THE CHILD BORN TO CW-2 IS NOT DISPUTED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE CHILD BORN TO CW-2 IS OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILD OF THE ACCUSED. IN THAT CAPACITY THE CHILD BORN TO CW-2 IS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18829 CRL.P No. 2480 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 2479 of 2019 HAVING RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY RELIEF AGAINST THE ACCUSED AVAILABLE UNDER LAW". THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner in Crl.P.No.2479/2019 has sought for expunction of certain remarks made against him by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in S.C. No.93/2016 vide judgment and order dated 28.04.2017. 2. In Crl.P.No.2480/2019, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala in Crl.Mis.No.77/2017 granting interim maintenance to the respondent herein. 3. The petitioner was tried for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC in S.C. No.93/2016. After trial, the Sessions Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offences against the petitioner. However, in the body of the said order, the Sessions Judge held that 'however, since the paternity of the child born to CW.2 is not disputed in the present case, the child born to CW.2 is of illegitimate child of the accused. In that capacity the child born to CW.2 is having - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18829 CRL.P No. 2480 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 2479 of 2019 right to claim any relief against the accused available under law'. 4. It appears that based on the above said observations, a petition under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.77/2017, seeking maintenance for her daughter. The Court in terms of an order dated 20.09.2017 granted interim maintenance to the daughter. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking expunction of the adverse remarks made by the Sessions Court in S.C. No.93/2016 and also the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.77/2017 by Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sessions Court could not have recorded a finding that the petitioner had fathered the child of CW.2. He contends that when the prosecution had failed to prove the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC, it was not just for the Sessions Court to arrive at a finding of fact that the child of CW.2 was fathered by the petitioner. He therefore submits that to that extent, the adverse remarks made against - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18829 CRL.P No. 2480 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 2479 of 2019 the petitioner has to be expunged. He submits that the Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala in Crl.Misc. No.77/2017 has relied upon the very same adverse remarks to grant interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month. He therefore submits that if the adverse remarks are expunged, the order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala in Crl.Misc.No.77/2017 would consequently deserve to be set aside. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand submitted that CW.2 had a daughter who purportedly born after she was raped by the petitioner. He submits that the Sessions Court has recorded a finding based on the DNA report at Ex.P23 that the child of CW.2 was fathered by the petitioner. He therefore contends that there is nothing wrong in the Sessions Court recording such a finding of fact. He however does not dispute the fact that the order passed by the Sessions Court could not be treated as evidence in view of Sections 42 and 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7. In view of the fact that the Sessions Court has recorded an extraneous finding regarding the paternity of the child born to CW.2, it could be at the most for the limited - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18829 CRL.P No. 2480 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 2479 of 2019 purpose of considering S.C. No.93/2016. The findings recorded by the criminal Court, could not, in any event, be treated as evidence in a petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C or before any Civil Court. The respondent wa s bound to prove the relationship of the petitioner with the child of CW.2. 8. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2479/2019 does not warrant interference in view of the clarification made above and is therefore dismissed. 9. In view of the findings recorded above, Crl.P.2480/2019 is allowed and the order dated 20.09.2017 in Crl.Misc.No.77/2017 is set aside. However, the Trial Court concerned is directed not to rely upon the observations made by the Sessions Court in S.C. No.93/2016 and it is for the respondent to independently prove the relationship of her child with the petitioner. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28