Partly allowed

Sri. Sagar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2021CRL.P/642/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 to quash prosecution powers in Mysuru Sessions Court for offences under IPC Sections 376, 417, 420, 506, 34 sought quashing of entire proceedings. Court dismissed petition for accused No. 1 directing trial but allowed petition for accused Nos. 2 and 3 and quashed proceedings against them as abuse of process of law since they

What did the court decide?

Quash entire proceedings against Petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) pending on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge Mysuru in S.C.No.202/2019

Sri. Sagar Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.642 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI SAGAR S/O. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO.LIG-71, KHB COLONY, (KEMPEGOWDA BADAVANE), NEAR CITIZEN SCHOOL, NANJANAGUDU TOWN - 571 301.

¶9

SRI NATESH S/O. NAGARAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.1188, BALAKRISHNA ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURAM, MYSURU - 570 005.

¶10

SMT. SUMA W/O. NATESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶11

PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.1188, BALAKRISHNA ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURAM, MYSURU - 570 005.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI HEGDE RAMAKRISHNA S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, NANJANGUDU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

H.N. CHAITRA D/O. NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NO.337, DAVANI STREET, HUNASURU TOWN - 571 301.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, HCGP; R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.202/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 420, 376, 114 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (ANNEXURE-D).

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the chargesheet in C.C.No.8/2019 (S.C.No.202/2019) on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376, 114, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

¶24

¶25

(for short ‘IPC’). The case was registered by the Nanjanagudu Town Police Station in Crime No.34/2018.

¶26

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶27

Respondent No.2-Defacto complainant served unrepresented.

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that the victim aged about 29 years filed a complaint on 23.03.2018 alleging that on 4.1.2016, she came in contact with accused No.1-Sagar through Shadi.com. Both of them agreed to marry. Accordingly, in order to confirm the marriage date, she came to the house of accused No.1 on 30.06.2016 at Nanjanagud. Except accused No.1, nobody was there in the house and on enquiry, accused No.1 told that his family members have gone somewhere and asked her to wait for sometime. She was waiting for his family members, at that time, accused No.1 dragged her to the

¶29

¶30

room and forcibly committed sexual assault on her saying that he will marry her and not to worry. Till one month accused No.1 used to make a phone call and message her. But later he avoided her phone calls and even though when she demanded for marriage, he again avoided her. Subsequently, she approached one Tara and Ravikumar who are the relatives of accused No.1 on 26.03.2017 near Ballala Circle, Mysuru in the house of accused No.3. There was negotiation and at that time, accused said to have told the victim to marry other person and they will pay some money whatever she demands. Accused also asked not to file any complaint. Subsequently, she issued legal notice to accused No.1. By that time, she came to know that accused No.1 is trying to marry some other lady. Therefore, she lodged a complaint. The Police registered a case in Crime No.34/2018 against accused No.1 and subsequently, in the charge-sheet they added accused Nos.2 and 3 as they have also abetted for the crime. The same is challenged before this Court.

¶31

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously contended that the complainant-respondent No.2 is major and even if they cohabited each other, that cannot be a rape. But for the purpose of harassing the petitioners, she had included all the family members of the accused No.1. The rape is committed in the year 2016 and there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint for two years and there is no explanation for the same. Absolutely, it is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashing the entire proceedings.

¶33

Learned counsel further submits that there is no allegation against accused Nos.2 and 3 except that the complainant approached them for settlement and they said to be told the victim to pay some money. That itself is not a ground for registering the case and filing the chargesheet against them. Learned counsel also submits that the victim has lodged a complaint against the Police Officials for the reason that they have not registered the FIR. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

¶34

¶35

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the same and contended that there is a categorical statement made by the complainant that accused No.1 has committed the offence of rape and thereafter, refused to marry her. She has approached the Police and they have not registered the case. Of course, there is a delay, but it cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings merely on the ground of delay. However, learned High Court Government Pleader admitted that there is no allegation made against accused Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the offence.

¶36

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of

¶37

the records, admittedly, the entire case is against accused No.1. Accused No.1 is said to be in contact with the complainant-victim through Shaadi.com and both agreed to marry. On 30.06.2016, the victim came to the house of accused No.1 at Nanjanagud in order to confirm the marriage date. Except accused No.1, nobody was there in the house and on enquiry, accused No.1 told that his

¶38

¶39

family members have gone somewhere and asked her to wait for sometime. She was waiting for his family members, at that time, accused No.1 dragged her to a room and forcibly committed sexual assault on her saying not to worry that he will marry her. Later he used to avoid her phone calls and even though when she demanded for marriage, he again used to avoid her. Subsequently, she approached one Tara and Ravikumar who are the relatives of accused No.1 on 26.03.2017 near Ballala Circle, Mysuru in the house of accused No.3. There was negotiation and at that time, accused said to have told the victim to marry other person and they will pay some money whatever she demands. Accused also asked not to file any complaint. Subsequently, she issued legal notice to accused No.1, by that time, she came to know that accused No.1 is trying to marry some other lady. Therefore, accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the brother-in-law and sister of accused No.1 were implicated in the charge-sheet. Of course, the allegation is only against accused No.1, but the entire material on record does not reveals any offence committed

¶40

¶41

by accused Nos.2 and 3 in order to proceed and to frame the charged against them.

¶42

On the other hand by looking to the medical evidence, the hymen of the victim was ruptured and the FSL report was also received. Based upon the doctor’s opinion in FSL report, there are no injuries in the inner and outer part of the pelvis. However, in view of rupturing of hymen, this cannot be controverted. As per Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, the presumption available in rape cases where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent. The sexual assault occurred in the year 2016 and the case was registered almost after two years. The victim also filed a complaint against the Police officials who have not registered the case on her complaint. Accused No.1 is required to undergo trial and the prosecution is

¶43

¶44

required to proceed against him. However, the petition against accused Nos.2 and 3 is abuse of process of law. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed in-part.

¶45

Petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 is hereby rejected and petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby allowed.

¶46

Accordingly, the entire proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 pending on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in S.C.No.202/2019 is hereby quashed.

¶47

The trial Court is directed to frame proper charges against accused No.1 and to proceed accordingly.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

GBB

Sri. Sagar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sagar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayana Gowda Vs Union of India

N Santhosh Kumar Vs Smt Rajeshwari

C S Sampreet Vs Smt Rajeshwari

Veerabhadraiah Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr M K Pushpitha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Narendra L Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka