Dismissed

Om Sai v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2022CRL.P/3828/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for rape and POCSO offences. The petitioner claimed no sexual activity occurred,contradicting the victim's statement and uncontradicted medical evidence indicating recent sexual activity.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. were dismissed.

Om Sai Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 3828 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3828 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

OM SAI S/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.278, NEAR SRI GANAPATHI TEMPLE, SAI NAGAR NERALURU VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 562107

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHIVAPPA T., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO NANDEPALYA PS BENGALURU 560068 REPTD BY GOVT PLEADER HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE 560001

¶13

SMT VINODA W/O MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.1025, NEAR ST. MERRY CHURCH

¶14

CRL.P No. 3828 of 2022

¶15

¶16

11^TH CROSS, BOMMANAHALLI MANGAMMANAPALYA BENGALURU - 560 068

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.21/2021 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-III BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.642/2021 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.363 AND 376 OF IPC AND SEC.4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT.

¶20

THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceeding in Spl.C.No.642/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, "the Act").

¶23

Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Shivappa T., appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1.

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 3828 of 2022

¶26

The petitioner, a 22 year old boy, comes in

¶27

contact with a victim who was 14 year old, through social media i.e., Instagram. The two get acquainted and on the date of the incident, the petitioner takes the victim for a stroll in the night and when the victim refused to return home as the parents would scold her, took a room in a hotel and allowed her to stay along with him in the hotel. At the time when she was in the hotel, it transpires that

¶28

the petitioner had indulged in sexual intercourse with the victim and later, when the victim failed to come home, a missing complaint is registered by her parents and when the victim was traced, offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act were invoked.

¶29

The petitioner files an application seeking his discharge from the array of accused under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The application so filed comes to be dismissed

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 3828 of 2022

¶32

on 14.03.2022. The dismissal of the application is what

¶33

drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it was an act of the petitioner and the victim being in love and did not have any sexual activity with the victim as Section 164 statement of the victim is clear that there has been no such activity. Therefore, she was dropped home by the petitioner himself and would submit that the petitioner is innocent and cannot be alleged of any ingredient of the offences so alleged against him.

¶35

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 would refute the submissions by production of the entire investigation material and the FSL report and contend that the petitioner has to come out clean in the trial, as there are ingredients of offences so alleged against the petitioner and would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 3828 of 2022

¶38

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶39

respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶40

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The acquaintance of the petitioner and the victim in social media i.e., Instagram is again not in dispute. The petitioner and the victim on 09.02.2021 go for a stroll on the said day and get into a hotel on the said night. Petitioner knowing fully well that the victim was only 14 years old, should not have indulged in any act that would become offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC or the POCSO Act. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Section 164 statement tendered by the victim before the learned Sessions Judge was in favour of the petitioner, is contrary to the records. The statement reads as follows:

¶41

"NA ¸Á¬Ä gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ »AzÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄªÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢: 08.02.2021 ¨ÉÃn DUÀÄªÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÝ. £ÁªÀÅ ¨É½UÉÎ 9.30 UÀAmÉJ ¥sÁgÀÄA ªÀiÁ¯ï UÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ C£ÀAvÀgÀ 3.30 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÉÝ. £Á£ÀÄ ¥sÁgÀÄA ªÀiÁ¯ï UÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ 3 d£ÀgÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄUÉ w½¹zÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ±Á¯É¬ÄAzÀ PÀgÉ

¶42

¶43

CRL.P No. 3828 of 2022

¶44

§A¢vÀÄÛ. £Á£ÀÄ ¥sÁgÀÄA ªÀiÁ¯ï £À°è ¸ÀÄvÁÛr 3.30 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì §AzÉ. CªÀÄä CzÀPÉPÀ ¨ÉÊ¢zÀÝgÀÄ ±Á¯ÉUÉ gÀeÉ ºÁQ AiÀiÁPÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ J°èUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ PÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁªÀ §AzÀÄ §Ä¢ÝªÀiÁvÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ. ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è «µÀAiÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 7.30 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀÄ£É ©nÖ ¨ÉÆªÀÄä£ÀºÀ½î EAzÀÄ ZÀAzÀ¥ÀÄgÀ DmÉÆÃzÀ°è ºÉÆÃzÉ D£ÀAvÀgÀ DmÉÆÃ qÉæöÊªÀgï £À ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï ¤AzÀ NA ¸Á¬ÄUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr, ªÀÄ£É ©nÖ §A¢zÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÄÝ CªÀ£ÀÄ ZÀAzÁ¥ÀÄgÀPÉÌ §A¢zÀÄÝ C°è ¸Àé®à ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ §¸Àzï ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è PÀÄ½wzÀÄÝ gÁwæ AiÀÄ°è G½AiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛUÀ°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ NA¸Á¬Ä £ÁgÁgÀAiÀÄ ºÀÈzÀAiÀÄ®AiÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæ ºÀwÛgÀ «gÀÄªÀ ªÉÊµÀÚ« gÉ¹qÉ¤ìAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃmÉÃ¯ï gÀÆA §ÄPï ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ £ÁªÀÅ D gÀÆA UÉ ºÉÆÃV ¥sÉæ±ï C¥ï DV £ÀAvÀgÀ qÁå«Ä£ÉÆÃ¸ï PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì gÀÆAUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÊµÀÚ« ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ºÉÆÃmÉÃ¯ï PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ C°è Hl ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì §AzÀÄ gÀÆA C°è ªÀÄ®VzÀÝªÀÅ. ªÀiÁgÀ£ÉÃ ¢£À J°èAiÀÄÄ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ°®è gÀÆA £À°è EzÀÝªÀÅ. 3£ÉÃ ¢£À ¨É½UÉÎ ¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀAeÉ gÀÆA £À°è EzÀÄÝ. gÁwæ 8.00 UÀAmÉUÉ Hl vÀA¢zÀÄÝ 9 jAzÀ 9.30 gÀªÀgÀUÉ NA¸Á¬Ä zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä MvÁÛAiÀÄªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©¹zÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ©qÀÄ°®è. CzÀPÉÌ E§âgÀÆ ºÁUÉAiÉÄÃ ¸ÀÄªÀÄä£ÉÃ EzÀÝªÀÅ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 1.00 UÀAmÉUÉ ºÉÆÃmÉÃ¯ï gÀÆA SÁ° ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ n¥sÀ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Hl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄrªÁ¼ÀPÉÌ §AzÀªÀÅ. CµÀÖgÀ°è ¸ÀAeÉ 4.30 UÀAmÉ DVzÀÝªÀÅ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ ZÀAzÀ¥ÀÄgÀPÉÌ DgÉÆÃ¦ ¨ÉÆªÀÄä£ÀºÀ½îUÉ MAzÀÄ §¸ï ºÀwÛzÉªÀÅ. DgÉÆÃ¦ ZÀAzÀ¥ÀÄgÀ E½¢zÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÆªÀÄä£ÀºÀ½î E½zÀÄ ¹ÃzÁ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁªÀ §AqÉ¥Á¼Àå ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ."

¶45

The victim deposes that the petitioner did force the

¶46

victim to have sexual activity with him despite her denying the same and at the time of the incident, the victim was

¶47

¶48

CRL.P No. 3828 of 2022

¶49

14 years old and the petitioner was 22 years, who has forced the victim to have indulged in physical activity with the petitioner.

¶50

The medical report is also placed for the perusal of the Court, which clearly demonstrates that there has been recent sexual activity upon the victim. With the facts being thus, no indulgence in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be shown to the petitioner, who has admittedly in terms of records that are placed before the Court indulged in such activity, which would become offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC or Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶51

For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit, the petition stands dismissed.

¶52

I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed, as a consequence

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

SJK

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Om Sai v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Sai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Yogesh Vs State of Karnataka

Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Naveen v Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Farooq Ur Rehaman Vs State by Lashkar P.S

S K Prabhu Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramakrishna Achar Vs the State by