IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Mr.Rajesh K.S.N (K.S.N. Rajesh) S/o Late K.N. Seetharamaiah – Appellant
Versus
State By Karnataka Through Mangalore Women Police Station Represented By Spp High Court Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.10550 of 2022
Decided on : 11-07-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 375, 376, 376(2)(f), (2)(k), 376C(a), 511, 354A, B, C, D, 506, 384, 388, 389, 204, 203, 212, 120B, 179, 202, 149, 467, 468, 471 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164, 482 - Attempt to rape - Commits rape repeatedly on same woman - Petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C. pending before JMFC (III Court) arising out of charge sheet in Crime – There is no reason to believe that Court would not apply its mind while framing charges - Para 21.
Finding of the Court: It is a matter of evidence, in a full blown trial for petitioner to come out clean - Court is yet to frame charges and there is no reason to believe that Court would not apply its mind while framing charges - None of submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner merit any acceptance - Judged from these spectrum and analysed on prismatic analysis, irresistible conclusion, is that there is no warrant of interference at hands of Court at juncture, to intervene, interdict or obliterate those allegations of rape, preparation and attempt for an offence against petitioner, as any interference by Court would be rendering plaudits to wanton lust and vicious appetite of petitioner - If a naive student of law, enters office of an Advocate, as an intern; in turn gets to face these horrendous acts, it would have a chilling effect on entire practice and profession - It is for accused to come out clean in a full blown trial - Course of order are only for purpose of consideration of case of petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and same shall not bind or influence proceedings pending against him before concerned Court.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2108 of 2022 pending before the JMFC (III Court), Mangaluru arising out of charge sheet in Crime No.78 of 2021 of Mangalore Women Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), 376C(a), 511, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 506, 384, 388, 389, 204, 203, 212, 120B, 179, 202 r/w 149 of the IPC.
2. The facts adumbrated, are as follows:-
The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the 2nd respondent, a second year law student of the SDM College gets to know the petitioner through one Mr. Dhruva Hegde, a classmate and friend. It is the case that the 2nd respondent was in requirement of work-cum-internship and, therefore, informs Mr. Dhruva Hegde to search out a place for internship. It is then Mr. Dhruva Hegde introduced to his brother-in-law one Mr. Shivanandana who was in contact with the petitioner. It is on the recommendation of Mr. Shivanandana, the complainant joins the office of the petitioner on 14-08-2021. It is said that the petitioner had narrated of the job and also indicated that the intern will have to stay up to 8.00 p.m. It was further informed that a stipend of Rs.6,000/-per month would be paid. The job began from 18-08-2021 and days passed by. The petitioner is said to have befriended the complainant by communications through whatsapp messages. The complainant is said to have reacted to such whatapp messages without knowing the intention of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner used to send CCTV footage and pictures of the complainant and was continuously watching the private movements of the complainant like combing hair, washing face etc. through the CCTV footage and used to send the same as pictures to the complainant.
3. As days passed by liberty was taken by the petitioner for making certain comments with regard to the dress that the complainant wore and sexuality involved in such dresses. It is said that the complainant did not reply to such messages as they were inappropriate. It is then, the petitioner started sending messages like he began to miss the complainant and began to like her. Chats between the two galore and the chats lead to a particular incident. On 25-09-2021 it is said that inside the cabin the petitioner was discussing a case and at around 6.40 p.m. there was no one in the office except himself and the complainant. It is then the petitioner calls the complainant into the cabin, pulled her hands and kissed on the forehead. After the said act, he held her tight and made her to sit on his lap and began to unbutton the complainant. It is further said that he moved his hands on the private parts of the complainant and started to undress himself. The complainant traumatized by the said act pushed the petitioner and ran out and while so doing, it is alleged that the petitioner threatened the complainant that if she would reveal anything that has happened therein everyone would see her dead body.
4. It is then the complainant appears to have called Mr. Dhruva Hegde and asked him to meet her. It appears that after a few minutes the friend of the complainant arrives. Later it is alleged that the petitioner went on calling the complainant continuously and one such call was recorded by the complainant wherein he had confessed repeatedly that he has attempted to rape the complainant and apologized and requested the complainant to close the issue. It appears, the complainant also complained to the wife of the petitioner which had led to certain threats being made to the complainant that she would be finished if she moves further by registering any complaint. It is then, the complainant takes courage and registers a complaint on 18-10-2021 before the Commissioner of Police at Mangalore narrating the entire incident with minute details. The matter was referred to the jurisdictional Police Station a
Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana
CHAITU LAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
gpt-4
It being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on basis of allegation made in complaint.
Judicial proceedings involving allegations of cheating and forgery must undergo comprehensive investigation; prima facie evidence suffices for proceeding, dismissing claims of civil nature.
The evidence produced by the accused in his defense cannot be looked into by the court at the pre-trial stage. The court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings is to prevent ....
Point of Law : Delay in lodging the FIR, final report being filed by an officer who was not in-charge of the Police Station; act of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence which be....
The court held that uniformity in witness statements does not invalidate a trial, and procedural lapses under relevant laws do not preclude prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an investigation conducted without the prior permission of the Magistrate, as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., is illegal and renders....
The Magistrate must apply judicial mind when taking cognizance and issuing summons, ensuring sufficient grounds exist for proceeding with the case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.