- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14607 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.883 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY R.M.C YARD POLICE STATION BANGALORE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU – 01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND: PRAVEEN KUMAR S THOTTAD S/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT CHINNAPURA S.K UNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT -587 103 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S B HALLI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.05.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.291/2017 BY THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DISCHARGING ACCUSED-RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417,420,376 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14607 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri S.B.Halli, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 2. State is in revision challenging the order of discharge passed by LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in S.C.No.291/2017 discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Order dated 05.05.2018. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 4. Based on the complaint of the prosecutrix, RMC Yard police station, Bengaluru, registered a case against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Complaint averments would go to show that in the guise of marrying the prosecutrix, accused said to have had repeated sexual intercourse with her. Later on, when the engagement - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14607 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2018 ceremony was fixed by her parents, she intimated the same to the accused. But accused has emphatically denied to marry her and therefore, complaint came to be lodged. 6. Police, after registering the case, investigated the matter and during the course of investigation, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the jurisdiction Magistrate on 03.10.2016. 7. In the said statement, prosecutrix has stated before the Court that accused was her neighbour at Bagalakote District and they were childhood friends. About two years earlier, when she had been to Bagalakote, accused proposed her to marry. 8. At that juncture, prosecutrix told that she is not interested in the marriage and they can remain as good friends. But accused in order to have his desire fulfilled, promised her that he would marry her and in that regard, there used to be telephone calls by the accused. Thereafter, accused said to have told the prosecutrix that his decision to marry her is intact. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14607 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2018 9. At that juncture, prosecutrix said to have informed the accused that her parents have fixed her engagement ceremony with Sri Sunil Kumar and marriage is fixed on 16th November. 10. However accused insisted that their love affair should continue and he would marry her. He further cajoled the prosecutrix to leave her parents' house and come to Ilakal. 11. Accordingly, taking few jewels from her house, prosecutrix boarded the bus from Bengaluru and reached Ilakal next day at 06.00 p.m. wherein she was taken to a rented house. 12. When the prosecutrix insisted for marriage, accused said to have informed her that he will marry her after completion of the examination. With that promise, he made her to stay for about 10 days in the said house. During such stay, accused had four times sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and therefore sought for action. 13. Police, based on said statement of the victim, filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 470, 420 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14607 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2018 14. On receipt of the charge sheet, learned Trial Magistrate committed the matter to the Sessions Court. 15. The presence of the accused was secured and matter was heard regarding the application filed by the accused seeking discharge. 16. Prosecution opposed the application for discharge by filing detailed written objections. 17. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the arguments of both the parties, following the principles of law enunciated in the case of Uday vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2003)4 SCC 46, noted that there is no material evidence on record to establish that there was a promise to marry the prosecutrix by the accused and therefore, offence under Sections 417 and 420 IPC per se would not get attracted. 18. Further, taking note of the fact that prosecutrix is a major lady and knowing the consequences of having physical relationship, would not have complained against the accused for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14607 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2018 especially when she has voluntarily moved from Bengaluru to Ilakal and stayed with the accused for a period of ten days without even informing her parents. 19. The application of the accused seeking discharge came to be allowed on aforesaid reasons. 20. Being aggrieved by the same, State has preferred the present revision petition. 21. Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader on behalf of the State would urge before the Court that the prosecutrix has been lured by the accused by repeatedly calling her over phone, taking advantage of her friendship with accused from childhood and committed the forcible sexual intercourse by keeping her in a rented house for ten days under the guise of marrying her and therefore, consent, if any, is not a free consent and it is a tainted consent. 22. He would further contend that material collected by the prosecution was sufficient enough to proceed with the case and principles of law enunciated in the case of Uday supra would not be applicable to the case on hand. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14607 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2018 23. Per contra, Sri S.B.Halli, learned counsel for the respondent/accused supports the impugned order. 24. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 25. On such perusal of the material on record, it is found from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the jurisdictional Magistrate that, on account of repeated telephone calls of the accused, prosecutrix voluntarily left her parents' house from Bengaluru and reached Ilakal and joined the accused wherein she insisted for the marriage. 26. No normal prudent major woman would do so unless it is a love affair. Based on some dispute in such love affair, a belated complaint came to be filed as an afterthought. 27. As is noticed by the learned Trial Judge, material on record is not sufficient enough to hold that there was a promise to marry which has been breached. Prosecutrix being the major woman having known about the consequences of having a sexual intercourse with a male, could not have ventured to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14607 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2018 such an act, especially when her marriage was fixed by her parents with Sri Sunil Kumar and engagement ceremony had also been performed. 28. In other words, on her volition, the prosecutirx left the parental house and joined the accused at Ilakal, after her engagement with Sri Sunil Kumar. Later on, turning around and filing a complaint against the accused for the offence under Sections 470, 420 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code is thus rightly an afterthought on account of the strained relationship in the love affair. 29. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is just and proper in the attendant facts and circumstance of the case. 30. Accordingly, viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds much less good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 31. It is to be borne in mind that an order of discharge is not an order of acquittal. If the investigation agency finds any additional material, may think of filing supplementary charge sheet against the accused. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14607 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2018 32. Reserving such liberty, the following: ORDER Revision Petition dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73