Heard the learned Senior Advocate, Shri B. V. Acharya, appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Shri Akarsh S. Kanade and the learned State Public Prosecutor-II, Shri K. R. Keshavamurthy.

2. The facts leading up to this petition are said to be as follows.

Respondent no.2 herein had lodged a complaint against the petitioner as on 27-8-2014, alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity), before the RT Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, which is said to have been registered as Crime no. 236/2014.

It was said to have been alleged in the complaint that she had met the petitioner for the first time on 8-5-2014 at a coffee bar, namely, Coffee Day in Sanjayanagar, Bengaluru. They were said to have been introduced by a common friend, one Kushal. It is claimed that they soon became intimate friends and it transpires that the petitioner had even proposed to marry the second respondent. It is claimed that she had agreed.

It is stated that the petitioner had taken the said respondent to Mangalore by flight, as on 5-6-2014. And that he had taken her to a home of the petitioner at Mangalore and had declared that he was marrying her then and there in the presence of God and had taken her to the pooja room of the house and is said to have tied a piece of turmeric, representing a 'thali'. And on the same night, they are said to have engaged in sexual intercourse.

Thereafter they had spent much time together at various places such as the Skybar, UB City, Bengaluru, the Country Club, Bengaluru, etc., It is stated that the petitioner had openly introduced the said complainant as his wife, to friends whenever they met any of them. It is further said to be alleged that the petitioner and the complainant engaged in sex on four occasions, over a period of time.

It is said to have been further stated in the complaint, that about a month prior to the complaint, the petitioner started avoiding her and did not even respond to phone calls.

It is stated that on 11-8-2014, the complainant is said to have met the mother of the accused and is said to have appraised her of the relationship. It transpires that the mother of the petitioner remained non-committal.

It is stated that on 27-8-2014, it was said to have been learnt by the complainant, through a news item on a TV Channel of the petitioner's engagement with another woman. The petitioner possesses celebrity status on account of his father being a well known political leader and presently a Minister of the Union Government of India.

It is thereafter that the complaint was said to have been lodged. The complainant has described herself as “Mythria Karthik Gowda”, thereby adopting the petitioner's name, apparently as her husband.

The police are said to have conducted a detailed investigation and filed a final report, as on 6-9-2015. The police have recorded a finding that no case was made out for offences punishable under Section 366 or Section 376, IPC. It was found that the allegation of her abduction by the petitioner was trashed as it was found that she had flown to Mangalore of her own volition and had even booked the air ticket herself. It was also held that there was no material made available to substantiate the allegations of any physical relationship between the petitioner and the complainant. Further, there was not even circumstantial evidence in that regard. Accordingly, it was held that the allegation of an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC also could not be sustained. The only finding by the police that the petitioner and the complainant had been seen in public together and that there were telephonic conversations between them, over a period of time. The Police have, however, formed an opinion that the circumstances would at best disclose an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC, as the conduct of the petitioner may have affected th