Allowed¶33

Shri. Ravindra S/O Sadashiv Magadum v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2025CRL.P/100108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quashing of criminal proceedings; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 420, 504 r/w 34 IPC; rape on promise of marriage; breach of promise to marry; fraudulent consent at inception; cheating; survivor consent to withdrawal of allegations; settlement; futility of trial; probability of conviction remote and bleak; abuse of process of law; Rs.5,00,000/- alleged demand; High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench; Hemant Chandangoudar J.; CRL.P No. 100108 of 2024; NC: 2025:KHC-D:1193; decided 22-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.116/2023 pending before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Banahatti, insofar as they relate to petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. ¶33

Shri. Ravindra S/O Sadashiv Magadum Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.116/2023 pending before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Banahatti, insofar as they relate to petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.116/2023 (Mahalingapur P.S. Cr. No.35/2023), for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 420, 504 r/w 34 IPC pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, should be quashed. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Since the survivor agreed to withdraw all allegations and had no objection to quashing, subjecting the accused to trial would be futile, the probability of conviction remote and bleak, and the continuation of the criminal proceedings an abuse of the process of law.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Mere breach of a promise to marry does not constitute an offence unless the consent was obtained fraudulently at the time of inception; as there is no material substantiating that petitioner/accused No.1 obtained the survivor's consent fraudulently, the essential elements to constitute the offences of cheating and rape are not satisfied.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 100108 of 2024 (S.482 Cr.P.C.) — Quashing — Rape and cheating on promise of marriage — Petitioners (accused Nos.1 and 2) sought quashing of proceedings in C.C. No.116/2023 (Mahalingapur P.S. Cr. No.35/2023) under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 420, 504 r/w 34 IPC pending before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Banahatti. Held: mere breach of a promise to marry does not constitute an offence unless consent was obtained fraudulently at inception; no material showed fraudulent consent, so the essential elements of cheating and rape were absent. The survivor, present before the Court, agreed to withdraw all allegations and raised no objection to quashing; continuing the trial would be futile, the probability of conviction remote and bleak, and continuation an abuse of the process of law. Petition allowed; proceedings quashed qua accused Nos.1 and 2. (Hemant Chandangoudar, J., Dharwad Bench, 22-01-2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1193 CRL.P No. 100108 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100108 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI. RAVINDRA S/O SADASHIV MAGADUM, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: MADABHAVI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 304.

¶7

SHRI. SADASHIV MAGADUM, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADABHAVI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 304.

¶8

… PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR B K Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.25 11:20:40 +0530

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, MAHALINGAPUR POLICE STATION, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011.

¶13

AKSHATA S/O SHIKAREPPA ULLAGADDI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BISNAL FARM HOUSE, TQ: RABAKAVI BANHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101.

¶14

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF C.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.116/2023 (MAHALINGPUR P.S. CR. NO.35/2023) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 376, 376(2)(N), 420, 504 R/W 34 OF THE IPC PENDING ON THE FILE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1193 CRL.P No. 100108 of 2024

¶18

OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶19

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(n), 420, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1, by promising to marry the survivor, induced her to have sexual intercourse and thereafter breached the promise to marry. The allegation against accused No.2 is that he threatened the survivor not to have any relationship with accused No.1 and asked her to pay Rs.5,00,000/- in this regard.

¶24

Accused No.1 and the survivor are present before this Court. The survivor has agreed to withdraw all the allegations against the accused and has no objection to the quashing of the impugned proceedings.

¶25

The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State submits that the offences alleged against the accused are heinous and constitute a crime against society, and therefore, cannot be compounded.

¶26

In the complaint, the survivor has alleged that she and petitioner/accused No.1 were in a relationship for four years prior to

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1193 CRL.P No. 100108 of 2024

¶29

the date of lodging the FIR. It is well-settled law that mere breach of a promise to marry will not constitute an offence unless the consent was obtained fraudulently at the time of inception. In the present case, there is no material to substantiate that petitioner/accused No.1 had obtained the consent of the survivor fraudulently to have sexual intercourse. Therefore, mere breach of the promise to marry does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of the offence of cheating and rape.

¶30

Further, since the survivor has agreed to withdraw all the allegations and has no objection to quashing the impugned criminal proceedings, it would be a futile exercise to subject the accused to trial, as the probability of conviction is remote and bleak, in light of the settlement. As such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶33

ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.116/2023 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Banahatti, insofar as it relates to petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, is hereby quashed.

¶34

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶35

KMS, CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 78

Shri. Ravindra S/O Sadashiv Magadum v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ravindra S/O Sadashiv Magadum v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash S/O Laxman Wangnekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Chetan S/O Uday Kallimani Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishwanath S/O Vasant Kanchan Vs the State of Karnataka

Manohar S/O. K. Kullayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravichandra S. Alias Ravi S/O. Basavarajayya S. Vs the State of Karnataka

S. Jayakumar S/O.Late S. Basavarajaiah Vs the State of Karnataka