Sri. Ananda, Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. Ananda, Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the trial Court rejecting the accused's application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 IPC was liable to be set aside in this criminal revision petition. +1 more

Court's answer

There is material to frame charge against the accused. The accused pleaded before the trial Court that the prosecutrix was a total stranger with no relationship between them, but in the present petition pleaded that the relationship was consensual and that there was never a promise to marry; these disputed facts are required to be decided at a full-fledged trial, and taking into consideration the entire material based on the charge sheet the trial Court rightly rejected the discharge application.

Ratio / Principle

The charge sheet filed after detailed investigation makes out a strong prima facie case. Having regard to the delay in filing the complaint, there is no biological evidence available to connect the accused with the crime; however, there is the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, and the telephonic conversation revealed that when the prosecutrix missed her periods and was under tremendous pressure, the accused advised her to consume papaya and sesame seed so that she will have periods.

Key takeaways

The decisions relied upon by the accused were decided on their own facts and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case; the prosecution is required to be provided with an opportunity to establish the allegations against the accused.ratio¶¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. by the accused against the order dated 11.09.2024 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I, Chamarajanagara, in S.C. No. 28/2023, rejecting his Section 227 Cr.P.C. discharge application in a case (Cr.No.24/2022, Chamrajanagar Women Police Station) charging him with offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 IPC on the prosecutrix's allegation of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage. HELD: (i) the charge-sheet material makes out a strong prima facie case; despite the delay in filing the complaint and the consequent absence of biological evidence, there is the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, and telephonic conversation in which the accused advised the prosecutrix to consume papaya and sesame seeds to induce periods; (ii) the accused's shifting stand - total stranger before the trial Court versus consensual relationship without promise of marriage in the revision petition - involves disputed facts decidable only at a full-fledged trial, and the trial Court rightly rejected the discharge application; (iii) the orders relied upon by the accused (Shivadhanush; Nitin B.Nikhare) were decided on their own facts and are not applicable to the present case, and the prosecution must be afforded an opportunity to establish the allegations. Petition dismissed; impugned order confirmed.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14122 CRL.RP No. 86 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 86 OF 2025

(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI. ANANDA, S/O MALLANNA @ MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT SHAGYA VILLAGE, HANUR TALUK,

CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571313.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

BY CHAMRAJANAGAR WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT-577101

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001

BHAVANI.S

D/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570001

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1;

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14122 CRL.RP No. 86 of 2025

SRI.D.S.SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11-09-2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-I, CHAMARAJANAGARA IN S.C NO 28/2023 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 227 OF CRPC.

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

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused has challenged the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the trial Court, rejecting the application filed by him under Section 227 Cr.P.C, seeking discharge for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 IPC.

For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

Based on the first information report given by

the prosecutrix, the concerned police registered case in

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14122 CRL.RP No. 86 of 2025

Cr.No.24/2022 and after detailed investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 IPC.

It is alleged that about four years prior to the complaint, when the prosecutrix has gone to the house of her grandmother CW-4 Chandrama situated at Shagya Village of Hanoor Taluk, she came to be acquainted with accused. The acquaintance developed to love affair. Accused took the prosecutrix on trip to Mahadeshwara Betta, Shivana Samudra and Mysuru. On 13.08.2021 while

the prosecutrix was proceeding to her village from Bengaluru, accused met her at Mysuru KSRTC bus stand and they spent the day moving around. At 7.30 p.m, accused promising to marry her, took her M.S.R international lodge and in Room No.2007, committed sexual intercourse. Similarly, on 22.04.2022, he took her to Room No.205 of Prithvi lodge of Hanoor and had sexual intercourse with her with a promise to marry her. However, subsequently he refused to marry her and

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14122 CRL.RP No. 86 of 2025

offered money and also give threat not disclose to anyone and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 IPC.

Accused filed application under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking discharge contending that he has not committed the offences. He is working as a computer operator in Shettalli Gram Panchayat, Kollegal and politically motivated false complaint is filed against him. He has denied having any friendship or physical relationship with the prosecutrix. The voice in the conversation allegedly recorded between him and prosecutrix is not his voice. There is delay of more than 10 months in filing the complaint. There is no prima facie material to proceed against him and pray to discharge him.

After considering the objections filed by the prosecution, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the accused. It is challenged by the accused

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14122 CRL.RP No. 86 of 2025

contending that the impugned order is not speaking order.

The trial Court has misinterpreted the facts. Both complainant and accused are major and the relationship between them was consensual. At the most, it may attract offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. However, no case is made out for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. There was previous ill between the complainant and her parents against the accused and they unsuccessfully tried to take him into their clutches. When they did not succeed, they have chosen to file false complaint. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The evidence collected at the investigation is not sufficient to frame charge against the accused. Without appreciating these aspects, trial Court has rejected the application filed by the accused and hence the petition.

In support of the petition, the learned counsel has relied upon the following orders:

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14122 CRL.RP No. 86 of 2025

(i) Shivadhanush T G @ Beerappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. ( Shivadhanush )¹

(ii) Nitin B.Nikhare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ( Nitin B.Nikhare )²

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned order. He would submit that prosecutrix and the accused was in love since four years. About 10 months prior to the filing of the complaint, accused with a promise to marry the prosecutrix took her to lodge and had sexual intercourse with her. This was repeated. Ultimately, he refused to marry her. The detailed investigation carried out by the investigating officer makes a strong prima facie case against the accused for framing charge. Taking into consideration the evidence collected at the investigation, the trial Court has rightly refused to discharge the accused and pray to reject this petition.

1 Crl.P.No.9120/2024 Dt: 05.11.2024

2 SLP (Crl)No.1889/2024

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14122 CRL.RP No. 86 of 2025

Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and perused the record.

Thus, it is the definite case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix and accused belong to schedule caste. While accused is working as a computer operator in the Gram Panchayat Shagya, the prosecutrix is working as a Nurse. They came to be acquainted with each other when the prosecutrix visited her grandmother's house at Shagya. Over a period of time their friendship turned into love. They were moving around with each other. On 13.08.2021, they went on a trip to Mahadeshwara Betta, Shivana Samudra and Mysuru. At 7.30 p.m, accused took the prosecutrix to M.S.R international lodge and with a promise to marry her had sexual intercourse with her. Again on 22.04.2022 at 10.45 p.m, he took her to Prithvi lodge and again under the promise of marriage had sexual intercourse with her. However, later he refused to marry her and also gave threat not to disclose their relationship

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14122 CRL.RP No. 86 of 2025

with anyone. Without any alternative, the complaint is filed.

Based on the complaint case is registered and detailed investigation is conducted and charge sheet is filed. It makes out a strong prima facie case. The medical evidence reveal that accused is capable of performing an act similar to that of sexual and course and the prosecutrix is also used to an act similar to that of sexual intercourse. Having regard to the fact that there is delay in filing the complaint, there is no biological evidence available to connect the accused with the crime. However, there is evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The telephonic conversation between the accused and prosecutrix also revealed that when the prosecutrix missed her periods and was under tremendous pressure, accused advised her to consume papaya and sesame seed so that she will have periods.

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14122 CRL.RP No. 86 of 2025

There is a material to frame charge against the accused. It is pertinent to note that in the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C, the accused has pleaded as though Prosecutrix is a total stranger and there is no relationship between them. However, in the present petition he has pleaded that the relationship between him and the prosecutrix was consensual one and that there was never a promise on his part to marry her. These disputed facts are required to be decided at a full fledged trial. Taking into consideration the entire material based on the charge sheet, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the accused.

So far as the decisions relied upon by the accused are concerned, they are decided on the facts. However, they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The prosecution is require to be provided with opportunity to establish the allegations against the accused. In the result of the petition fails and accordingly the following:

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14122 CRL.RP No. 86 of 2025

ORDER

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

The impugned order dated 11.09.2023 in SC.No.28/2023 on the file of Addl.District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I, Chamarajanagara, is confirmed.

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith.

In view of disposal of the petition, pending application/s, if any, stands disposed off, as no separate order is required.

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

RR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50