The Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the discharge of an accused in a case involving allegations of rape, cheating, and intimidation. The Court held the Trial Court did not err in concluding sufficient grounds for trial were lacking.
The revision petition was dismissed and the file was sent back to the Trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 38 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.G. NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 1.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
DEEPU L., S/O LINGARAJU B., AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, "ANUGRAHA", 11TH MAIN, 4TH 'C' CROSS, ANJANEYA NAGAR, ITTAMADU, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA V.B., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 05.05.2018 IN S.C.NO.47/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-54).
NC: 2024:KHC:13611 CRL.RP No. 38 of 2019
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State has preferred this revision petition against the order on discharge of the accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
The K.G.Nagar Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused/respondent for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 506 of I.P.C. After filing the charge sheet, the case was registered in C.C.No.2724/2017 and the case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the Court of Sessions. On committal, the case was registered in S.C.No.47/2018. In pursuance of summons issued by the learned Sessions Court accused appear before the Sessions Court.
"Whether the revision petitioner had made out grounds to interfere with impugned order passed by the Trial Court?".
NC: 2024:KHC:13611 CRL.RP No. 38 of 2019
(i) In the Negative
(ii) As per the final order.
The facts of the prosecution of this case is that the accused approached the complainant for help in finding a job. Later developed friendship with her and after three months turned to feelings and both of them exchanged their feelings and accused had sex with the complainant on 17.02.2016 at about 6:30p.m., in the house of the complainant and later, whenever accused used to visit the complainant house and he had physical relationship with her on the guise of marrying her. Whenever the complainant insisted the accused to marry her, he use to postponed the same, telling that he wanted to settled down first in his carrier and thereby exploited complainant in this manner and committed rape frequently and he has been deceitful by inducing belief of commitment. Thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 376, 417, 506 of I.P.C.
offences punishable under Section 376, 417, 506 of I.P.C. as under:
Point No.1: The complainant CW-1 in her complaint has stated that accused approached her for job and later both of them became friends, after three months of such friendship, both of them developed feelings and started having sexual intercourse with each other in her residence, whenever accused used to visit her in her house. When she was subjected for medical examination before KIMS hospital on 8.10.2016, her statement was recorded by the concerned doctor. Wherein, she has stated that it is a case of cheating said to have been promise to marry by one Deepu.L and both of them having sexual intercourse two to three months from February and lost intercourse was on 28th and 29th September 2016. Hence, according to complainant sexual intercourse between accused and complainant taken place on 2 to 3 times in a month from February to September 2016. Before Doctor she has made any allegation of threat by accused. The averments of complainant forthcoming in the complaint and also before the concerned doctor establishes that complainant consented to have sexual relationship with accused, since February 2016 itself i.e., 8 months prior to filing of this complaint. The age of CW-1 is shown as
31 years and according to prosecution, she is five elder than accused. When such being the case, she is capable of understanding the consequences of her act. She also understands the consequences of entering male person into her house, when she was alone. The photographs produced along with the charge sheet consisting of accused and complainant herein clearly establishes that both had jovial time, whenever they were met each other. According to CW-1 herself they were having sexual intercourse with each other two to three times in a month since February 2016 to February 2016. This version of complainant establishes that it is the case of consent. That apart, complainant is not making any allegation of single act of rape on her by accused According to materials placed before this court both accused and CW-1 had sexual intercourse with each other frequently i.e., 2 to 3 times in a month, whenever they used to visit each other. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in. Uday Vs. State of Karnataka observed that person having physical relationship with woman on false promise of marriage does not amounts to rape. Under such circumstances, even the ingredients of Section 417 are also not attracted. The only course opened to the CW-1 is to file a suit for damages before proper forum. There are absolutely no materials to proceed against accused for offences punishable under
Section 376, 417 of IPC. So, also Section 506 of IPC, since victim. not. made any such statement of threat by accused when her statement was recorded by medical officer. Framing of charge in a case like this and conducting trial only consumes court's valuable time. As per the provisions of Section 227 of Cr.P.C if there is no material to proceed against accused it is mandatory for the court to discharge such accused. Accordingly, I have answered point No.1 in the Negative.
11. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point NO.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
There is no sufficient ground to proceed against accused, accordingly he is discharged in Crime No.407/2016 for offences punishable under. Section 376, 417 and 506 of IPC:
(i) In the Negative.
to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The revision petition is dismissed.
ii) Registry is directed to send back the copy of this order along with the Trial Court Records to the concerned Court.
Sd/JUDGE
PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:SNN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner made out grounds to interfere with the impugned order discharging the accused?
Whether the Trial Court correctly discharged the accused for alleged offences under Sections 376, 417, and 506 of the IPC?
Whether the consent of a female aged 31 years vitiates the complaint of rape?
5 provisions across 2 enactments
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEEPU L.
G BASAVARAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
