Mr Kishore Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 14.08.2024 OF FRAMING OF CHARGES FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 376, 420, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SEC.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, IN SPL.S.C.NO.21/2023 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, FRAMED AGAINST THE FIRST PETITIONER HEREIN (ACCUSED NO.1) BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, NOT MAINTAINABLE AND OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE APART FROM BEING ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT OF LAW AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, accused Nos.1 and 2 have challenged the framing

¶29

of charge by the trial Court against them for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506 r/w Section

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:17383 CRL.RP No. 1567 of 2024

¶32

34 IPC and Sections 3 (1)(s) 3(2) (va) and 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST (POA) Act').

¶33

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

¶34

In support of the petition, the accused have

¶35

contended that the order framing the charge is totally arbitrary, erroneous, illegal and not sustainable in law. The statement of the complainant that there was promise made by accused No.1 to marry her in order to engage in sexual relationship with her is false. The statements of the complainant in the FIR and her further statement accompanied in the charge sheet are inconsistent and are totally unreliable. All these materials indicate and demonstrate that the allegations of rape is totally false and concocted. In the absence of sufficient material, there is no application of mind by the trial Court in framing the charge.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:17383 CRL.RP No. 1567 of 2024

¶38

3.1 The charge sheet clearly indicate that there was

¶39

sexual relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant, in pursuance of their love affair. It was a consensual relationship. Such being the case, the allegations of rape are false. Intentionally allegations with regard to SC/ST (POA) Act are introduced. Continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. When the alleged incident took place inside the house, provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act are not attracted. Based on such material, even if the trial is conducted, it would end up in acquittal and hence the petition.

¶40

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for

¶41

accused has relied upon the following decisions:

¶42

(i) State of Karnataka Vs. L.Muniswamy ( Muniswamy )¹

¶43

(ii) State of Bijhar Vs. Ramesh Singh ( Ramesh Singh )²

¶44

(iii) Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra ( Madhu Limaye )³

¶45

1 1977 (2) SCC 699

¶46

2 1977 (4) SCC 39

¶47

3 1978 Cr.L.J 165

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17383 CRL.RP No. 1567 of 2024

¶49

(iv) V.C.Shukla Vs. State by CBI ( V.C.Shukla )⁴

¶50

(v) Ramachandra Vs. State of M.P. ( Ramachandra )⁵

¶51

(vi) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra ( Pramod Suryabhan Pawar )⁶

¶52

(vii) Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of U.P ( Sonu @ Subhash Kumar )⁷

¶53

(viii) C.Anil @ Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka ( Anil @ Anil Kumar )⁸

¶54

(ix) Sri. XXX Vs. State of Karnataka⁹

¶55

(x) Ms. XXX Vs Mr. A¹⁰

¶56

(xi) Prashanth Vs. State of NCT Delhi ( Prashanth )¹¹

¶57

(xii) Mahesh Dhama Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra ( Mahesh Dhama Khare )¹²

¶58

(xiii) Rajanish Singh Vs. State of U.P ( Rajanish Singh )¹³

¶59

4 AIR 1980 SC 962

¶60

5 1989 Cr.L.J 162 (MP)

¶61

6 AIR 2019 SC 4010

¶62

7 AIR 2021 SC 1405

¶63

8 Crl.P.No.8468/2021 DT: 03.09.2022

¶64

9 Crl.P.No.7704/2022 DT: 28.06.2024

¶65

10 2024 Crl.L.J. 1894 (SC)

¶66

11 AIR 2025 SC 33

¶67

12 2025 Cr.L.J. 168

¶68

13 2025 Live Law (SC) 279

¶69

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17383 CRL.RP No. 1567 of 2024

¶70

Supporting the order passed by the trial Court

¶71

framing charge, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that on the basis of complaint filed by complainant, a case came to be registered against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. However, during investigation and further statement of the complainant, it was revealed that accused No.2 also abused her referring to her caste in the presence of CW-2 and also gave threat. After conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. There is prima facie material to frame charge against the accused persons. In fact, the trial Court has already framed charge against the accused persons. In the light of the prima facie material available in the charge sheet, without providing opportunity to the prosecution, its case cannot be thrown out.

¶72

7 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:17383 CRL.RP No. 1567 of 2024

¶74

In support of his arguments, learned High Court

¶75

Government Pleader has relied upon the following decisions:

¶76

(i) Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal ( Kanti Bhadra Shah )¹⁴

¶77

(ii) Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam and Ors. ( Bhawna Bai )¹⁵

¶78

Heard arguments of both sides and perused the

¶79

record.

¶80

In the light of the ratio in the above decisions, it is necessary to examine whether there is any sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons or it is a case for discharge as sought in the petition.

¶81

Accused No.1 being prosecuted on the

¶82

allegations that with a promise to marry the complainant, he had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions

¶83

and ultimately refused to marry her saying that she belong

¶84

to Scheduled Caste and also abused her referring to her

¶85

14 (2000) 1 SCC 722

¶86

15 (2020) 2 SCC 217

¶87

8 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:17383 CRL.RP No. 1567 of 2024

¶89

caste. Similarly, when complainant along with her brother and father met accused Nos.1 and 2 and apprised accused No.2 about the facts, he also abused all of them referring to their caste and also gave threat.

¶90

The charge sheet reveal that complainant was a student of Oxford Engineering College, Bengaluru whereas accused No.1 studied at Sri Sairam Engineering College, Anekal. During this period, they came to be acquainted with each other and ultimately fell in love. Accused No.1 promised to marry the complainant. After their studies, they joined different companies and continued their affair. On 15.12.2020, 17.02.2021 and 06.06.2022, accused No.1, under a promise of marrying her took the complainant to hotel and had sexual intercourse with her, despite her reluctance and resistance. However, later, he refused to marry her, saying that she belong to Scheduled Caste and thereby cheated her.

¶91

On 02.07.2023, accused No.2 invited the complainant to speak about her relationship with accused

¶92

9 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:17383 CRL.RP No. 1567 of 2024

¶94

No1. Complainant along with CWs-2 and 3 went to Araleri Road of Malur town. Accused Nos.1 and 2 met them on the public road and after complainant narrated the entire facts and requested accused No.1 to marry her, accused No.2 gave threat to CWs-1 to 3. When CW-2 - the father of complainant pleaded accused No.2 to permit accused No.1 and complainant to marry, he abused them referring to their caste and gave threat that if accused No.1 marry the complainant, he would be disinherited and caused humiliation to CWs-1 to 3 in the public place.

¶95

CW-2 is the brother, CWs-3 and 4 are the parents of complainant. They belong to Bhovi community, which comes under Scheduled Caste. Accused Nos.1 and 2 being the son and father belongs to Hindu Kusruba community, which comes under forward caste. After conducting detail investigation, the concerned police filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2. So far as the incident dated 02.07.2023, CWs-1 to 3 are the witnesses. So far as the allegations that accused No.1 committed

¶96

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17383 CRL.RP No. 1567 of 2024

¶97

rape on the complainant under the promise of marriage, there is complaint and statement of complainant. There is

¶98

prima facie material to proceed against the accused persons to frame charge. In fact after going through the charge sheet averments and the investigation papers, the trial Court has framed charge against the accused Nos.1 and 2. At the stage of framing the charge, the Courts cannot examine the probative value of the charge sheet material and examine whether such evidence is sufficient to convict the accused persons. In the result, the petition

¶99

fails and accordingly the following:

¶100

ORDER

¶101

Petition filed by the accused under Section 397(1) r/w 401 Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.

¶102

The impugned order dated 14.08.2024 of framing of charges for the offence

¶103

punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under

¶104

11 -

¶105

NC: 2025:KHC:17383 CRL.RP No. 1567 of 2024

¶106

Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 in Spl.SC.No.21/2023 on the file of II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Kolar is confirmed.

¶107

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶108

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Mr Kishore v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Kishore 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Abhishek Koddigahalli Vs Sri P Kishore Kumar

Sri. K. C. Balaram Vs Sri. J R Raju

K R Ravindra Kumar Vs Ravi N M

Sri N Balaji Singh Vs Smt.Mathura Bai

B R Jadav Vs Sri. M a Chowdappa

Sri Mahalinga Vs Smt. Shashikala