Dismissed

Sri. Ramachandra M.C. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023CRL.P/7253/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings under Sections 482 and 426 CrPC. The court granted quash order of proceedings against accused Nos. 3 and 5 to maintain parity with a prior order discharging accused Nos. 2 and 4 at the Special Court

What did the court decide?

Provisions in S.C. No 282/2018 pending in the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge Bengluru CCH 71 insofar as it relates to accused Nos 3 and 5 are hereby quashed and acc

Sri. Ramachandra M.C. Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40541 CRL.P No. 7253 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7253 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RAMACHANDRA M.C, S/O LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT: 2ND FLOOR, I MAIN, NEAR MARUTHI SCHOOL, MARUTHI NAGAR, KOTTANURU MAIN ROAD, J.P.NAGAR, 7TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶9

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

¶10

SRI. CHANNAMARAIAH GOWDA @ CHINNAMARAIAH S/O NACHALLIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT -NO.400, 7TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, HARINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KONANAKUNTE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED - SPP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

SMT. SOWMYA, D/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT: NO.505, 11TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40541 CRL.P No. 7253 of 2023

¶17

MTB AREA, J.P.NAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 078. MOBILE NO.9739052270.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2023 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN S.C.NO.282/2018 REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTIONS 226 AND 227 OF CR.PC FOR DISCHARGE FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 354(A) OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1) AND (R)(S) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989, UNDER ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are sought to prosecute for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376, 313, 341, 354, 509, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 alleging that the petitioner/accused No.1 by promising to marry CW-1 had sexual intercourse with CW-1 and when she was pregnant, she was forced to terminate the pregnancy at the instance of the Petitioners herein.

¶24

Accused No.1 had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3596/2018 challenging the impugned proceedings, and this Court vide order 22.06.2022 quashed the proceedings against accused No.1 by observing as follows:-

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:40541 CRL.P No. 7253 of 2023

¶27

"4. A FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent alleging that two years prior to the lodging of FIR, the petitioner -accused No.1 and CW1 were in love with each other and the accused No.1 forcibly had sexual intercourse with CW1 and when she was pregnant, the petitioner - accused No.1 forced her to terminate the pregnancy. It was further alleged that after having sexual intercourse with CW1 on three to four occasions, the petitioner - accused No.1 started to avoid her and on 22.7.2017 she attempted to commit suicide. Since the petitioner - accused No.1 came to the hospital and promised to marry CW1, CW1 did not lodge FIR against the petitioner - accused No.1. Thereafter, his friends i.e. other accused threatened her and outraged her modesty. The police after investigation submitted a charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

¶28

5. The Apex Court in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 181 by referring to the decision in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar -vs- State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 at para-11 has held that in the absence of 4 allegation that promise to marry was false promise at the inception, the false promise itself must be of immediate relevance or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act. In the present case, there is no allegation that promise made to the 2nd respondent was false at the inception. Charge sheet material does not disclose that the petitioner by using force or by assaulting has outraged the modesty of the victim so as to constitute the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of Atrocities Act. Hence, in the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioneraccused No.1, the filing of charge sheet against the petitioner - accused no.1 is without any substance."

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40541 CRL.P No. 7253 of 2023

¶30

Following the order passed by this Court, accused Nos.2 and 4 against whom similar allegations were made have been discharged by the learned Special Judge by order dated 23.09.2023 in S.C.No.985/2019, this petition also requires to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order so as to maintain parity. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Criminal petition is disposed of ;

¶33

ii) The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.282/2018. pending on the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Benglauru (CCH-71), insofar as it relates to accused Nos.3 and 5 is hereby quashed and accused Nos.2 and 4 are discharged of the offences alleged against them.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

CPN

Sri. Ramachandra M.C. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ramachandra M.C. 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

Srinivasa L Vs State of Karnataka

Ashwini Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Abhishek Rana, Vs State of Karnataka by

Usha C R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shwetha Vs State by Tumakuru Women Police Station

Sri Krishna Murthy C v Vs Sri M K Muniraj