Harshwardhan Chauhan Vs State of Karnataka

HARSHWARDHAN CHAUHAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O SHYAMLAL CHAUHAN RESIDING AT 70/B, NEAR SAI MANGALAM WARD NO.49, VIDYUT NAGAR DURG, CHHATTISGARH – 491001 ALSO AT NO.1514, 23A CROSS ROAD RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR 7 BENGALURU – 560 068

¶10

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUDIT ASHUTOSH MUNDKUR, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M DIVAKR MADDUR, HCGP)

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:35807 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.05.2026 PASSED BY THE LIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.1128/2025 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed against the order dated 22.05.2026 passed by the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Special Judge, Bengaluru in C.C.No.1128/2025 in rejecting the application for discharge filed by the petitioner.

¶21

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

¶22

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶23

The factual matrix of case of the prosecution against this revision petitioner is that he came in contact with the victim-CW1 through Bumble app i.e., dating app and got

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35807 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

introduced the victim through that app and made her to believe that he is going to marry her and he used to visit the house of CW1 and as against her free will, he subjected her for sexual intercourse and as a result, she became pregnant. Thereafter, the petitioner said her that if she terminates the pregnancy, he will marry her. Hence, CW1 was taken to the hospital and in the hospital records, petitioner has mentioned that he is the husband of the victim - CW1 and got aborted the pregnancy with CW30 and also having got aborted, taken the fetus from CW31 to the house of CW9 which is located at HSR layout and in the flower pot, the same was kept. All these materials were collected during the course of investigation by the IO.

¶27

The specific allegation is made against this petitioner that he made believe the victim girl to marry her, subjected her for sexual act. As a result, she became pregnant and also caused the life threat and thereafter, he left CW1. Hence, complaint was lodged and investigation was conducted and invoked the offences under punishable under Section 69, 89, 352, 351(2) of BNS 2023.

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:35807 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Having filed the charge sheet, the accused has filed

¶32

an application for discharge invoking Section 250 read with Section 262 of BNSS, 2023. The grounds which have been urged in the application is that after introducing themselves through Bumble app, the complainant insisted on meeting the petitioner. Accordingly both of them have met on 20.09.2024 at Paul restaurant, Domlur. The complainant represented that she was a pilot who worked with Indigo Airlines. She is a freelance therapist and also a former HR professional and was earning Rs.60,00,000/- per annum. The complainant told the petitioner that she had cleared her UPSC exams in first attempt, but had missed the final interview by a small margin and she had also represented to the petitioner that she was raised in Dubai and that she was interested in entering into a relationship. She later on started pressurising the petitioner to move to a residence closer to Domlur so that they could continue their relationship. That on 21.09.2024, she went to the PG of the petitioner and insisted him start searching for a house. On 23.09.2024 the complainant invited the petitioner to her apartment and informed that her flatmate was not there. They had consensual sexual intercourse without any protection.

¶33

5 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:35807 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

According to the petitioner, the complainant had stated that as she had 12 chemotherapy sessions and hence she was infertile. She made petitioner to believe that her flatmate was a woman. However, it was later on learned by the petitioner that the flatmate was a man by name Prashant Kumar Sinha. When asked about the same, complainant claimed that the said person was a childhood friend and that there was no romantic relationship between them. The petitioner later came to know that the complainant earlier was in a legal relationship with the aforesaid Prashant Kumar Sinha, whom she had met on Bumble app. On 30.09.2024, the complainant informed the petitioner that she was pregnant despite claiming that she was infertile. She claimed that petitioner was a father of the child and though petitioner suspected the same, he decided to go on with her decision.

¶37

According to the petitioner, on 13.01.2024, the complainant went to Kolkatta to have chemotherapy and terminate her pregnancy. She did not inform the same to the petitioner. On 19.10.2024, when the petitioner accompanied the complainant to Aspire Fertility Clinic, he came to know that

¶38

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35807 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

complainant had undergone abortions in the year 2017, 2018, 2022 and the same was not informed to him. During November 2024, both the petitioner and the complainant moved into a flat at HSR layout and the security deposit for the same was paid by the petitioner. The complainant made a fake wedding card to make the landlord believe that they were a married couple and forced the petitioner to lie to his parents regarding their marital status in order to protect her character. On 28.10.2024 the petitioner took the complainant to Bhilai, Chttisgrh for Deepavali function. There, the complainant lied to the petitioner's family that she was a freelance photographer and forced the petitioner not to inform to his parents about her pregnancy. When the petitioner disclosed her pregnancy to his parents, the complainant had an aggressive outburst. The family of the petitioner wanted to meet the family of the complainant. She refused the same stating that there was a restraining order from her own parents and claimed that she was a estranged from her parents and declined to take the petitioner to meet them.

¶41

7 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:35807 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

It is also the case of the petitioner that a false allegation is made against the petitioner and no material is recovered. When the Investigating Officer has collected the material, the same are contradictory to each other i.e., both in the medical records as well as the other collected materials.

¶45

The counsel also brought to notice of this Court to the medical records particularly the questions 9 and 10 and contend that he was not very much present at the time of aborting the pregnancy. Also counsel would vehemently contend that when there is no material before the court to proceed against the petitioner, ought to have granted the relief of discharge in favour of the petitioner. The counsel also vehemently contend that the contradictions which have been found in the medical records collected during the course of investigation has not been considered. Only based on the statement of victim under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. proceeded to reject the application. Hence, it requires interference of this court.

¶46

Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that the trial Court while considering

¶47

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35807 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the discharge application taken note of the statement of the victim under Section 183 of BNS which shows that victim has supported the case of the prosecution and her statement is very clear that this petitioner subjected her for sexual act and even pregnancy was also terminated, the trial Court in paragraph 16 taken note of the same. In paragraph 17, Trial Court taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court wherein categorically held that if Court is of opinion that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused presuming that he has committed the offence triable by Court of Session, then frame the charge against the accused for such offence. It is also made an observation that it is settled law that while considering the discharge application, the Court need not hold mini trial. But only the court has to see that whether acceptable materials are available on record or not. Hence, the Trial Court has passed reasoned order. Hence, it does not require any interference.

¶50

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the petitioner has filed this petition

¶51

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:35807 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

against the rejection order on the discharge application. The scope of revision is very limited. Only in case of any miscarriage of justice and order of the trial court suffers from its legality and correctness, then this Court can exercise the revisional powers. The counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court the voluminous documents which are produced in two volumes and particularly he brought to notice of this Court the medical records wherein when the statement of doctor was recorded, it stated that there was no presence of this petitioner. Inspite of this Court repeatedly made it clear that all these documents are to be considered at the time of trial and not at the stage of consideration of discharge application and the Court cannot conduct mini trial while considering the discharge application, the counsel for the petitioner made an attempt even to persuade this Court to see the medical records. This Court already made it clear that scope of revision is very limited and also the scope and ambit of the discharge application is also very limited and only this Court has to see whether the order of the Trial Court is based on the material on record or not.

¶54

10 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:35807 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Having perused the column number 17 of the charge sheet which this Court already extracted while referring the case of the prosecution, it is clearly mentioned that this petitioner subjected the victim-CW1 for sexual act repeatedly and as a result, she became pregnant and also the pregnancy was terminated. Also the case of the prosecution that while getting terminated the pregnancy, petitioner mentioned his name as husband of the victim CW1 in the medical record and also even aborted fetus was taken to the house of CW9 and the abortion was also made with CW30. All these specific allegations are made in the charge sheet against this petitioner. When there is such serious offence of subjecting her for sexual act, whether it is consensual or forceful, the same is a subject matter of trial and not at the time of discharge. The trial Court while dismissing the application, taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhawan Bai vs Ghanshyam and other reported in (2020) 2 SCC 217 in paragraph 17 and principles were also summarized with regard to the framing of charge and held that at the time of framing of charge, only prima facie case has to be seen. Whether case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at

¶58

11 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:35807 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2026

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

this stage. Court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required, only prima facie case against accused has to be seen. Judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of the record and hearing of parties, if judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that accused has committed offence triable by Court of Session, he shall frame charge against accused for such offence. While considering the discharge application also it is settled law that the court need not hold mini trial. But only the court has to see whether acceptable materials are available on record.

¶62

In the case on hand, when the victim makes the statement before the police under Section 161 as well as before the Learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on oath with regard to the act done by this petitioner and the same is a matter of trial. The trial Court cannot consider the ground which have been urged with regard to the contradictions which the counsel made an attempt to point out before this Court since the same is a matter of trial. The criminal jurisprudence is

¶63

12 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:35807 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2026

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

based on only the omissions, commissions and contradictions and the same ought to have been brought only during the course of trial and not at the stage of considering discharge application. The same has been done by the trial Court. Inspite of reasoned order has been passed by the Trial Court and this Court also expressed that it is not a case to consider the grounds of the petitioner, the petitioner counsel is ventured to brought to the notice of this Court to look into the medical records to bring the contradictions in the medical records and the charge sheet materials wasting the precious time of the Court. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

¶67