Dismissed¶50

The State of Karnataka v. Nagesh @ Naga

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2025CRL.RP/743/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018; decided 28.10.2025 by Ravi V Hosmani, J.; State revision against discharge in SC No.928/2016 (Sections 376 and 420 IPC; Crime No.740/2015, Banaswadi PS) dismissed; sexual intercourse on promise of marriage; Section 420 charge unsupported - no evidence, no particulars of cash/gold ring; prima facie test for discharge per P Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2010) 2 SCC 398; Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State of NCT of Delhi 2025 INSC 457; Crl.RP.No.731/2018 dt.21.07.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:42947.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to petitioner-State; revision petition dismissed, discharge order undisturbed. ¶50

The State of Karnataka Vs Nagesh @ Naga — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to petitioner-State; revision petition dismissed, discharge order undisturbed.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether there was prima facie material to substantiate the charges under Sections 376 and 420 IPC such that the discharge of the respondent-accused was unsustainable. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Perusal of the complaint averments and further statement of the victim indicates the allegation is that the accused had sexual intercourse with her on promise of marriage and later the marriage did not come through.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

On the charge under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has virtually collected no evidence and the victim did not state particulars of time and place of handing over the cash.

¶43

Key takeaways

The impugned discharge order being in tune with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the decisions relied upon, no case of perversity or infraction of any provision is established.ratio¶48
The revision petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition under Ss.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. by the State of Karnataka against the order dated 13.04.2018 of the LIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in SC No.928/2016 allowing discharge of the accused (offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 IPC; Crime No.740/2015, Banaswadi Police Station; charge sheet dated 24.03.2016 on statements of 18 witnesses). Complaint alleged the accused, on promise of marriage, had forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix over about five years and obtained Rs.15,000/- and a gold ring. Held: complaint averments and further statement disclose only sexual intercourse on promise of marriage, later not fulfilled; on the Section 420 charge the prosecution had 'virtually collected no evidence' and the victim gave no particulars of time and place of handing over the cash. The discharge, being in tune with the ratio in P Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398, and the decisions of this Court relied upon (including Crl.RP.No.731/2018, disposed of on 21.07.2025; Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 457 cited for respondent), involved no perversity or infraction of any provision. Revision dismissed (Ravi V Hosmani, J.). Neutral citation: NC: 2025:KHC:42947.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:42947 CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 743 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU - 01

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

¶10

AND:

¶11

NAGESH @ NAGA S/O LATE GURUSIDDAIAH, AGED 30 YEARS, R/A NEAR ICICI BANK, COCA - COLA CROSS, ABBANAGUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI POST, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 109.

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

PERMANENT ADDRESS CHANNAVADEYANPUR VILLAGE. BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPETE TALUK, CHANARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI P.B.UMESH, ADVOCATE SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.928/2016 PASSED BY THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 AND 420 OF IPC AND ALLOW THIS CRL.RP.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:42947 CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This revision petition is filed challenging order dated 13.04.2018 passed by LIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in SC no.928/2016 in allowing application for discharge filed by respondent-accused.

¶24

Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned HCGP appearing for petitioner - State submitted, on 14.10.2015 a complaint was lodged by prosecutrix (victim) alleging that accused became acquainted with her and despite being informed about her earlier relationship had assured to marry her and while she was working in Apple Hospital had forcible sexual intercourse with her and repeated same during next 5 years and ultimately refused to marry her and during said time he had got her to part with sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of cash as well as one gold ring. Same was registered in Crime no.740/2015. After investigation, wherein statement of as many as 18 witnesses were recorded and charge sheet was filed on 24.03.2016 for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC. It was

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:42947 CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

submitted prosecution had sufficient material to substantiate charges.

¶29

On an application filed by respondent/accused for discharge, trial Court without proper reasons allowed application and discharged accused. Aggrieved thereby revision petition was filed. It was submitted, while passing impugned order only reason assigned by trial Court was that having sexual intercourse on promise of marriage and later failing to fulfill said promise, would not constitute offence under Section 376 of IPC and only remedy would be to claim damages in civil suit would be unsustainable.

¶30

It was submitted, in complaint victim had clearly stated that on promise of marriage, accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Even charge sheet filed was on same allegation and prosecution was seeking to rely upon statement of as many as 18 witnesses which included Mahazar witnesses, statement of victim and medical officer, which would constitute prima-facie material in support of charges. Such being case, allowing application for discharge would be contrary to law and sought for quashing same.

¶31

- 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42947 CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

On other hand, Umesh PB, learned counsel appearing for Sri RB Deshpande, Advocate for respondent/accused opposed revision petition. It was submitted, in complaint case of victim was on promise of marriage, accused had sexual intercourse with her. Though allegation of forcing her to part with cash of Rs.15,000/- and gold ring on promise of marriage is alleged, she did not state about same in her further statement recorded. It was submitted Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaspal Singh Kaural v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 457 and decision of this Court in Crl.RP.no.731/2018 disposed of on 21.07.2025, under similar circumstances dismissed revision petition against order of discharge. On said ground sought for dismissal of revision petition.

¶34

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order

¶35

and material on record.

¶36

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P Vijayan v.

¶37

State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 , has held at time of considering discharge application, trial Court

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:42947 CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

would require to examine whether there was prima facie material to establish offences alleged and if so, application for discharge could not be entertained.

¶42

In instant case, perusal of complaint averments as well as further statement of victim would indicate allegation that accused had sexual intercourse with her on promise of marriage and later marriage did not come through.

¶43

Insofar as charge under Section 420 of IPC, it is seen prosecution has virtually collected no evidence nor victim had stated particulars of time and place of handing over cash.

¶44

While passing impugned order, trial Court observed that even as per victim there was allegation of sexual intercourse over a long period of time i.e., nearly five years admittedly, after victim had attaining age of majority. It referred to ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 , wherein it is held when prosecution failed to establish prima facie ingredients for offence as alleged there was no error in allowing application for discharge. Said order being in tune with ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:42947 CRL.RP No. 743 of 2018

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

this Court in decisions relied upon, no case of perversity or

¶49

infraction with any provision is established.

¶50

Revision is devoid of merits and accordingly stands

¶51