Sri Puneeth Kumar @ Puneeth Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.P BY SETTING ASIDE THE COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 06.07.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-71) SPL.C.NO.1628/2022 THEREBY ARRAIGNING THE PETITIONER AS ACCUSED NO.1 IN AFORESAID CASE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376,354-B,506 & 417 OF IPC R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) AND SEC.3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT. 1989 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THEREON.

¶28

IN CRL.P NO. 4007/2022

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

ARMUGAM M S/O MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.12/1, QUEENS ROAD NEAR SPORTS LINE,

¶31

SHIVAJINAGAR

¶32

BENGALURU - 560051

¶33

VANAJA

¶34

W/O ARMUGAM.M AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶35

RESIDING AT NO 12/1, QUEENS ROAD NEAR SPORTS LINE, SHIVAJINAGAR

¶36

BENGALURU - 560051

¶37

VIJAY KUMAR

¶38

S/O ARMUGAM M AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.12/1, QUEENS ROAD NEAR SPORTS LINE,

¶39

3 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

HC-KAR

SHIVAJINAGAR

BENGALURU - 560051

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. HANUMESH H N, ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶48

BY SHIVAJINAGAR P S REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING

¶49

BENGALURU - 560001

¶50

SHALINI A

¶51

D/O AYOTHI.A AGED 24 YEARS

¶52

RESIDING AT NO.01, CORPORATION QUARTERS, PAYAPPA GARDEN, SHIVAJI ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560051

¶53

...RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;

¶55

R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶56

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.P BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2022 AND 13.04.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXIX ACMM AT MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN CR.NO.29/2022 AND CONSEQUENT TRANSFER OF THE CASE TO LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-70) THROUGH REQUISITION LETTER OF INVESTIGATION OFFICER DATED 30.03.2022 AND ANOTHER REQUISITION DATED 31.03.2022 THEREBY ARRAIGNING THE PETITIONERS AS ACCUSED IN AFORESAID CRIME FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376,506 &

¶57

4 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

417 OF IPC R/W 3(2)(v) AND 3(1)(s) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND CONSEQUENTLY.

¶61

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶62

CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶63

COMMON ORDER

¶64

Petitioner in Crl.P.No.8366/2022 who is arraigned as accused No.1 and petitioners in Crl.P.No.4007/2022, who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 4 have filed these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354-B, 506, 417 IPC r/w section 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities act (for short 'SC/ST (POA) Act').

¶65

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before they trial Court.

¶66

On the basis of complaint filed by the

¶67

prosecutrix, aged 24 years, Cr.No.29/2022 came to be

¶68

5 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

registered against accused No.1 for the offences

¶72

punishable under Section 376 506 and 417 IPC. It is alleged in the complaint that from 2011 to 2016 prosecutrix along with her family members and accused No.1 were staying in the same building. She was in friendship with accused No.1. During 2019, accused No.1 expressed his love to the prosecutrix and proposed to her and insisted to marry her. However, she refused the proposal saying that they belong to different caste and their parents may not agree and they would continue to be good friends.

¶73

3.1 Thereafter for one year, they continue to be good friends. After her family members came to know about this, they vacated the said house and shifted to Papanna garden area. In this background on 28.05.2020, accused No.1 came to her house under the guise of wishing her on birthday. She was alone in the house and he insisted on her to marry him. When she did not agree, he forcefully took her to the bedroom and raped her

¶74

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

against her will. When she cried, he promised to marry her

¶77

and left. This was repeated several times. When her parents came to know about it, they bet her and started looking for an alliance for her. She brought this fact to the notice of accused No.1 and requested him to marry her. He refused and gave threat of killing her and committing suicide.

¶78

Based on the complaint, case came to be registered against accused No.1. During investigation, accused No.1 was arrested. Both prosecutrix and accused No.1 were subjected to medical examination. According to the prosecution on 27.03.2022, prosecutrix has given further statement before the investigating officer stating that on 19.03.2022 at 4.30 p.m, accused Nos.2 to 4 came to the house of grandmother of prosecutrix and accused No.1 said that he belong to higher caste - Vaniyan Goudar and she belong to schedule caste (Aadi Dravida) which is a lower caste and that he is not going to marry her and they can do whatever they want and that they are having

¶79

7 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

political influence and went away. On the basis of this further statement, the investigating officer has implicated accused Nos.2 to 4. They secured bail.

¶83

Accused Nos.2 to 4 have filed

¶84

Crl.P.No.4007/2022 and vide order dated 30.05.2022 secured stay of further proceedings so far as they are concerned.

¶85

Accused No.1 has also approached this Court in Crl.P.No.8366/2022. In the meanwhile, the charge sheet came to be filed as against accused No.1 in Spl.C.No.1628/2022. Vide order dated 07.02.2023, the further proceedings in Spl.C.No.1628/2022 came to be stayed.

¶86

In support of the petition, accused Nos.2 to 4 have contended that they have nothing to do with the alleged offences which are false and fabricated. No specific role is attributed to them. Only to harass and humiliate

¶87

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

and also to pressurize accused No.1, they are implicated. The allegations made are not believable. Even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted as true, it does not attract the provisions for which complaint is filed. There is no prima facie material to connect these accused with the alleged crime. As a counterblast to the complaint filed by accused No.3 with Bhartinagar police against the complainant for blackmailing and threatening accused No.1 to force him to marry her, she has chosen to file a false complaint and also implicated them.

¶90

In support of his petition, accused No.1 has contended that the complaint is false and fabricated. There is no prima facie material to hold that accused No.1 is involved in the crime in question. There is inordinate delay of two years in filing the complaint. Both complainant and accused persons belong to Scheduled Caste and as such the alleged offences under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act are not attracted. Complainant is an educated individual with adequate intelligence and maturity to

¶91

9 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

understand the significance and morality associated with maintaining sexual relationship with accused No.1. The relationship between them was consensual. Accused No.1 is also falsely implicated and sought for quashing the

¶95

criminal proceedings against all the accused persons.

¶96

9. In support of his arguments learned counsel

¶97

representing accused No.1 has relied upon the following decisions:

¶98

(i) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶99

( Pramod Suryabhan Pawar )¹

¶100

(ii) Uday Vs. State of Karnataka ( Uday )²

¶101

(iii) Joe Abraham Mathews Vs. State of Karnataka ( Joe Abraham Mathews )³

¶102

(iv) Prathap H.G Vs. State of Karnataka ( Prathap )⁴

¶103

(v) Amogh Wadeyar and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka ( Amogh Wadeyar )⁵

¶104

(vi) X v. A and Ors. ( X v )⁶

¶105

1 AIR Online 2019 SC 904

¶106

2 AIR 2003 SC 1639

¶107

3 AIR 2022 KAR 1015

¶108

4 Crl.P.No.983/2022 Dt: 14.07.2022

¶109

5 AIR 2023 KAR 852

¶110

6 AIR 2024 SC 160

¶111

10 -

¶112

NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that after conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police have filed charge sheet against accused No.1, which makes out a strong prima facie case. On account of stay, the concerned police could not file charge sheet against the remaining accused. The caste certificate of prosecutrix is also yet to be collected. In the light of the same, there is prima facie material to proceed against the accused persons and sought for dismissal of the petitions.

¶115

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶116

According to the prosecution, the family of prosecutrix and the accused persons were neighbours, staying in the same building. When the complaint was filed in the year 2022, prosecutrix was aged 24 years. According to her since 2019, she was in friendship with accused No.1. In other words, at that time, she was aged around 21 years. In the complaint itself it is stated that

¶117

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

accused No.1 wanted to marry her and therefore proposed. However, she refused the said proposal by stating that they belong to different caste and their family member may not agree for their marriage and they would

¶120

just continue to be good friends. The complaint also state that as anticipated by the complainant, when her family members came to know about their friendship, they bet her and shifted residence to different area i.e, Payappa Garden. However, complainant and accused No.1 continue to chat. In the complaint, the prosecutrix has alleged that on 28.05.2020, when her parents were not in the house, at 3.30 p.m, accused No.1 came to her house under the pretext of wishing on her birthday and forced her to marry him and when she did not agree, he forcefully had sexual intercourse with her against her will saying that he would marry her. When she cried, he left the house saying

¶121

that he will marry her and she give him sometime.

¶122

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

Admittedly, after this incident prosecutrix has

¶125

not given any complaint. The complaint also state that accused repeated this many times and when her parents came to know about it, they started looking for alliance for

¶126

her to marry her of. Therefore, she approached accused and requested him to marry her and when he refused, she filed the complaint. According to the prosecutrix, since she belong to different caste, though accused No.1 was always requesting and pleading her to marry him, she was not ready as she knew that her parents would oppose it. In fact, as anticipated by her, after they came to know about the relationship between her and accused No.1, they assaulted her and shifted the residence. After they came to know about the physical relationship between her and accused No.1, they resisted it by searching alliance for her.

¶127

In the light of the fact that at the relevant point of time, prosecutrix was a major and her conduct in not filing complaint against accused No.1 after the first

¶128

13 -

¶129

NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

incident and also after subsequent alleged forceful sexual intercourse made by accused No.1, clearly indicate that she was a consenting party and was aware of the nature of the consent. Her medical evidence does not indicate any

¶132

injuries on her person, indicating that it was a forceful sexual intercourse made by accused No.1 against her will. It appears at the instance of her family members, the prosecutrix has chosen to file complaint.

¶133

So far as involvement of accused Nos.2 to 4 is concerned, on 25.03.2022, when she filed the complaint against accused No.1, she has not stated anything about the incident dated 19.03.2022 involving accused Nos.2 to 4. However, on 27.03.2022, she has given further statement stating that after she informed her parents about the accused No.1 refusing to marry her and giving threat, they in turn informed the family members of accused No.1. In this regard, on 19.03.2022, i.e., 6 days prior to the filing of the complaint, accused Nos.1 to 4 came near the house of complainant's grandmother situated at Payappa Garden and

¶134

14 -

¶135

NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

said that accused No.1 is not going to marry the prosecutrix and they belong to higher caste - Vaniyan Goudar, whereas complainant and her family members belong to SC(AD) - lower caste and they can do whatever they want. There was no impediment for the complainant to disclose this fact in her complaint. It appears only to rope in accused Nos.2 to 4, this alleged further statement is given or created.

¶138

In order to show that accused persons also belong to Scheduled Caste and as such the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act are not applicable, the caste certificates of Armugam accused No.2, A.Vanaja accused No.3 and A. Vijay Kumar accused No.4 as well as Transfer Certificates of A.Vanaja and Vijay Kumar are produced which indicate that accused persons also belong to Scheduled Caste and therefore the provisions of SC/ST(POA) Act are not applicable.

¶139

Accused have alleged that the prosecutrix used to send messages to accused No.1 forcing him to marry her

¶140

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

and under pressure, he attempted to commit suicide and took treatment in ICU at Victoria hospital. In this regard his mother i.e., accused No.3 Vanaja gave a complaint to the Bharthinagar Police on 25.03.2022. After coming to know about the same, the prosecutrix has chosen to file the complaint. The documents produced by accused Nos.2 to 4 evidence the fact of accused No.1 attempting to commit suicide and taking treatment and filing of complaint before Bharthinagar Police. Though the prosecutrix claim that since 4 years accused No.1 is sexually assaulting her against her will, she has not chosen to file any complaint till accused No.2 filed complaint against her with the Bharthinagar Police. The timing of complaint by the prosecutrix supports this allegation.

¶143

Thus, from the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a case of consensual relationship between prosecutrix and accused No.1 and she has chosen to file a false complaint for obvious reasons. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings would

¶144

16 -

¶145

NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶146

HC-KAR

¶147

amount of abuse of process of the Court and they are liable

¶148

to be quashed.

¶149

In the result, both appeals succeeds and accordingly, the following:

¶150

ORDER

¶151

(i) Crl.P.No.8366/2022 filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.4007/2022 filed by petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C are hereby allowed.

¶152

(ii) The impugned order dated 06.07.2022 in Spl.C.No.1628/2022 on the file of LXX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) is hereby quashed.

¶153

(iii) The impugned order dated 31.03.2022 and 13.04.2022 in Cr.No.29/2022 on the file of

¶154

17 -

¶155

NC: 2025:KHC:19535 CRL.P No. 8366 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 4007 of 2022

¶156

HC-KAR

¶157

XXIX ACMM, Mayohall, Bengaluru and consequent transfer of the case to LXX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-70) is set aside.

¶158

(iv) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail.

¶159

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶160

RR

¶161

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri Puneeth Kumar @ Puneeth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Puneeth Kumar @ Puneeth v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashikala T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Adarsha Vs State by

Sri P Mohan Vs State by

M/S. Innoviti Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri. Anshul Agrawal

Mr. Daniel John Patrick Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Priyadharshini S Vs State of Karnataka