Disposed¶38

Gowrish B. Sugur v. the Station House Officer

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2025CRL.P/12528/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by sole accused in S.C.No.870/2020 (CR.No.15/2019, Puttenahalli PS; Ss.376, 420, 506 IPC — alleged rape on false promise of marriage and cheating of Rs.5.00 lakhs; petitioner's counter-extortion complaint ended in unchallenged B report; discharge application dismissed). Trial underway with three witnesses examined; High Court declined to assess ingredients at that stage, left all contentions open to the Trial Court, and disposed of the petition without quashing. Mohammad Nawaz, J.; decided 07-04-2025.

What did the court decide?

At the present stage it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. ¶35

Gowrish B. Sugur Vs the Station House Officer — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:14880 CRL.P No. 12528 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12528 OF 2022

¶8

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

GOWRISH B. SUGUR S/O BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO. 796/A, 1^ST CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 1^ST STAGE, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BENGALURU 19.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. M. E. MOHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶16

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECTOR HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE.

¶17

LATHA L, C/O DHARMARAJ S.K AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO. 166/B, 1^ST CROSS, R.S. PALYA, BENGALURU 33.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY MS. ASMA KOUSER., ADDL. SPP FOR R1;

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:14880 CRL.P No. 12528 of 2022

¶22

SRI. K. B. K. SWAMY., ADV. FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.15/2019 IN S.C.NO.870/2020 (C.C.NO.6113/2020) OF PUTTENHALLI POLICE STATION FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.376,420,506 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-54 BENGALURU.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner/sole accused in Sessions Case No.870/2020 pending before the Court of City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH54) Bengaluru has preferred this petition seeking to quash the entire proceedings.

¶28

Charge sheet is filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 420 of IPC. Case of the prosecution is that the petitioner with a false promise of marriage committed sexual intercourse with the victim and also received more than Rs.5.00 lakhs and thereby cheated her etc.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:14880 CRL.P No. 12528 of 2022

¶31

One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after a complaint was lodged by the petitioner against respondent No.2, alleging extortion , a false complaint is lodged making reckless allegations. He contended that the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out and therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that insofar as the complaint lodged against the victim is concerned, the police have conducted investigation and filed B report, which is not challenged by the petitioner. He contended that, in the present case, the police having collected sufficient materials has filed charge sheet and even the discharge application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Trial Court, which is also not challenged.

¶33

Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted

¶34

that the trial has commenced and three witnesses are already examined.

¶35

At this stage it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. Since the trial is in

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:14880 CRL.P No. 12528 of 2022

¶38

progress, any observations if made on the merits of the case, may prejudice both the parties. Petitioner can take all the defense before the Trial Court and therefore, keeping open all the contentions to be raised at the appropriate stage before the Trial Court, petition is disposed of .

¶39

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶40

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Gowrish B. Sugur v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowrish B. Sugur v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K M Thyagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Parvinder Singh Vs the State of Karnataka by Hoskote P S

Sri. S Siddaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. O R Akshay Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivakumar. N Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka