Allowed

Sateesh Aliyas Satish Gangappa Ullagadi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2022CRL.RP/100303/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, setting aside the lower court's order. It discharged the accused for rape charges due to a nine-year delay making conviction improbable. It recorded a compromise for other offences, acquitting all accused persons.

What did the court decide?

Accused No. 1 discharged for rape offences; all accused Nos. 1 to 5 acquitted for other offences upon recording of compromise.

Sateesh Aliyas Satish Gangappa Ullagadi Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 100303 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100303 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally
signed by
ANNAPURNA
ANNAPURNACHINNAPPADANDAGAL CHINNAPPADANDAGALLocation:HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD

¶9

SATEESH ALIYAS SATISH GANGAPPA ULLAGADI S/O GANGAPPA ULLAGADDI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC.ADVOCATE R/O JAGADAL VILLAGE, RABAKAVI TQ. BANGAHATTI DIST. BAGALKOT -587311

¶10

GANGAPPA BHEEMAPPA ULLAGADDI S/O BHEEMAPPA ULLAGADDI AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURIST R/O JAGADAL VILLAGE, RABAKAVI TQ. BANGAHATTI DIST. BAGALKOT -587311

¶11

SUNANDA GANGAPPA ULLAGADDI W/O BHEEEMAPPA ULLAGADDI AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEWIFE R/O JAGADAL VILLAGE, RABAKAVI TQ. BANGAHATTI DIST. BAGALKOT -587311

¶12

NEELAVVA RAMAPPA HARAPANALLI W/O RAMAPPA HARAPANALLI AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURIST R/O JAGADAL VILLAGE, RABAKAVI TQ. BANGAHATTI

¶13

¶14

CRL.RP No. 100303 of 2022

¶15

DIST. BAGALKOT -587311

¶16

RAJU SHIVAGOND GUNDI ALIYAS RAJASHEKHAR S/O SHIVAGOND GUNDI AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC.WEAVER R/O BANAHATTI TALAGAR GALLI RABAKAVI TQ. BANGAHATTI DIST. BAGALKOT -587311

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. J BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH BANAHATTI P.S.) REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAK BENCH AT DHARWAD -580011

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.5024/2021 AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5 FROM THE CASE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 341, 342, 354(B), 376(1), 376(2) (n), 506, 504 R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

CRL.RP No. 100303 of 2022

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot to sit at Jamakhandi in S.C.No.5024/2021, wherein the application filed by the petitioners seeking discharge from the offences has been rejected.

¶29

It is the case of the prosecution that, the prosecutrix has lodged a complaint stating that accused No.1 has committed a rape on the pretext of promise to marry her. The alleged incident has taken place on 25.12.2011 and complaint came to be lodged on 28.04.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1) 376(2)(n) of IPC.

¶30

It is further stated that, the accused Nos.2 to 5 have assaulted prosecutrix when she had been to the house of accused No.1 on 27.04.2020 asking the accused No.1 to marry her. On that occasion, the accused Nos.2 to 5 have insulted and outraged her modesty and assaulted. Therefore, she has lodged the complaint against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 354B,

¶31

¶32

CRL.RP No. 100303 of 2022

¶33

504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. It appears from the averments of the complaint that the accused Nos.2 to 5 have committed offences stated supra. However, accused No.1 has committed offences punishable under Sections 376(1) 376(2) (n) of IPC along with the offences as against accused Nos.2 to 5.

¶34

The jurisdictional police after registering the case conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by filing of the charge sheet against the petitioners, the petitioners have filed discharge application before the Trial Court. The Trial Court rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this petition seeking for discharge from the offences.

¶35

Heard Sri.J.Basavaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the State and also Sri.D.V.Pattar appearing on behalf of the prosecutrix.

¶36

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the alleged offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n) of IPC would not be attracted against the accused

¶37

¶38

CRL.RP No. 100303 of 2022

¶39

No.1. It is stated in the complaint that, the alleged incident of rape had taken place on 25.12.2011 , the complaint was lodged on 28.04.2020 . It appears that, the accused No.1 and the prosecutrix were loving each other and it is consensual sex. Therefore, the offence of rape cannot be sustainable. More over, there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint about commission of rape. Since there is a delay of nine years, the possibility of convicting the accused in respect of offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n) of IPC cannot be presumed. As such, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to discharge accused No.1 for the offences stated supra .

¶40

Per contra, Sri.Ramesh B.Chigari, learned HCGP submits that it is well established principle of law that, in a case where the Trial Court is dealing with the discharge application filed by the accused, the Trial Court has to satisfy that there is prima facie case against the accused. In other words, on reading of the entire charge sheet, whether the prosecution has made out prima facie grounds against the accused or not has to be looked into.

¶41

¶42

CRL.RP No. 100303 of 2022

¶43

It is further submitted that, at the time of considering the discharge application roaring enquiry regarding possibility of conviction is not required. On reading of the complaint and the charge sheet, it appears that the allegations prima facie establishes the guilt of accused No.1 in respect of offence of rape. It is further submitted that, the Trial Court rightly rejected the applications of discharge filed by the petitioners and the averments made in the complaint requires detailed trial. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition against accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n) of IPC.

¶44

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents available in the charge sheet and order passed by the Trial Court in respect of application filed under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is stated in the complaint that the alleged incident has taken place on 25.12.2011. The ledger extract produced discloses that, the accused No.1 had been to the resort on 05.10.2012 to 06.10.2012 but there is no whisper regarding the presence of the prosecutrix.

¶45

¶46

CRL.RP No. 100303 of 2022

¶47

Be that as it may, the delay in lodging the complaint in respect of offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n) of IPC would defeat the case of the prosecution. On reading of the entire documents available on record, the possibility of convicting the accused for the offence stated supra is remote and impossible. Therefore, the offences stated supra may not survive for consideration. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n) of IPC prima facie not made out against the accused No.1. Therefore, accused No.1 is entitled for discharge for the offences stated supra.

¶48

11 . As regards other offences namely, Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 341, 342, 354(b), 506, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC are concerned, the parties have filed applications under Section 320 of Cr.P.C stating that the matter is settled at the intervention of well wishers and elders and also the complainant voluntarily agreed to compromise the matter. After perusing the averments made in the application and also the affidavit of the complainant, in order to secure the quietus there is no impediment to this Court to record the compromise in respect of the offences stated supra except Sections 376(1)

¶49

¶50

CRL.RP No. 100303 of 2022

¶51

and 376(2)(n) of IPC. It is needless to say that the allegations in respect of offences under Sections 376(1) and 376(2)(n) of IPC against accused No.1 have been discharged by this Court in the paragraph stated above.

¶52

In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

a) The petition is allowed.

¶55

b) The order dated 16.06.2022 in SC No.5024/2021 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamakhandi is set aside.

¶56

c) Accused No.1 has been discharged for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1) and 376(2)(n) of IPC.

¶57

d) The accused Nos.1 to 5 have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 341, 342, 354(b), 506, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63

Sateesh Aliyas Satish Gangappa Ullagadi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sateesh Aliyas Satish Gangappa Ullagadi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka, Vs Kailas Mahajan Narmada Trading Co.

State of Karnataka, Vs Kumar S/O Malleshappa Ballari

State of Karnataka, Vs Indramal S/O Raghunathmal Bhandari

Manjunath S/O Hanumanth Kolipuchha Vs Geethappa Hanumanth Bhajantri

Chourashi Mahila Multipurpose Souhard Vs the Secretary

Dyaneshwar Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs the Secretary