Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 579
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
J.M. KHAZI, J.
Puneeth Kumar @ Puneeth S/o Armugam - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 4007, 8366 of 2022
Decided On : 06-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Hanumesh H.N.
For the Respondent: Vinay Mahadevaiah
The court established that the allegations of sexual assault were fabricated and based on a consensual relationship, warranting quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376, 354-B, 506, 417 - Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act - Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) - Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings for alleged offences of rape, assault, and harassment based on the prosecutrix's complaint, which the court found to be fabricated and lacking prima facie evidence against Accused Nos. 2 to 4. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Consent and false accusations - Court held that the relationship between the prosecutrix and Accused No.1 was consensual, indicating the complaint was engineered to harass the accused, thus constituting abuse of court process. (Paras 14-18)
Facts of the case:
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the accused based on a complaint from the prosecutrix, alleging multiple assaults, including rape, but the court found inconsistencies and fabricated elements to the prosecution’s case.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the allegations were not substantiated by credible evidence and highlighted the consensual nature of the relationship.
Issues: The principal issues were the credibility of the prosecutrix's allegations and whether the SC/ST (POA) Act applied to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that continued prosecution would cause undue hardship as the complaint lacked substance, labeling the act of filing it as intended to oppress the accused.
Result: Both petitions for quashing the proceedings were granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal proceedings initiated for serious offences. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. procedural posture of the petitions. (Para 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. defendants claim false accusations and lack of evidence. (Para 7) |
| 4. allegations of consent and challenges on delay. (Para 8) |
| 5. prosecution presents investigation findings. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. court's observations on the evidence and caste implications. (Para 11 , 16) |
| 7. evaluation of consent and complainant's knowledge of the relationship. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 8. court's opinion on the consensual nature of the relationship. (Para 14 , 18) |
| 9. discussion on allegations against additional accused. (Para 15 , 17) |
| 10. court's final order quashing proceedings. (Para 19) |
ORDER :
1. Petitioner in Crl.P.No.8366/2022 who is arraigned as accused No.1 and petitioners in Crl.P.No.4007/2022, who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 4 have filed these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them for the offences punishable under Sections 376 , 354-B, 506, 417 IPC r/w section 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities act (for short 'SC/ST (POA) Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before they trial Court.
3. On the basis of complaint filed by the prosecutrix, aged 24 years, Cr.No.29/2022 came to be registered against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 376 506 and 417 IPC. It is alleged in the complaint that from 2011 to 2016 prosecutrix along with her family members and accused No.1 were staying in the same building. She was in friendship with accused No.1. During 2019, accused No.1 expressed his love to the prosecutrix and proposed to her and insisted to marry her. However, she refused the proposal saying that they belong to different caste and their parents may not agree and they would continue to be good friends.
3.1 Thereafter for one year, they continue to be good friends. After her family members came to know about this, they vacated the said house and shifted to Papanna garden area. In this background on 28.05.2020, accused No.1 came to her house under the guise of wishing her on birthday. She was alone in the house and he insisted on her to marry him. When she did not agree, he forcefully took her to the bedroom and raped her against her will. When she cried, he promised to marry her and left. This was repeated several times. When her parents came to know about it, they bet her and started looking for an alliance for her. She brought this fact to the notice of accused No.1 and requested him to marry her. He refused and gave threat of killing her and committing suicide.
4. Based on the complaint, case came to be registered against accused No.1. During investigation, accused No.1 was arrested. Both prosecutrix and accused No.1 were subjected to medical examination. According to the prosecution on 27.03.2022, prosecutrix has given further statement before the investigating officer stating that on 19.03.2022 at 4.30 p.m, accused Nos.2 to 4 came to the house of grandmother of prosecutrix and accused No.1 said that he belong to higher caste - Vaniyan Goudar and she belong to schedule caste (Aadi Dravida) which is a lower caste and that he is not going to marry her and they can do whatever they want and that they are having political influence and went away. On the basis of this further statement, the investigating officer has implicated accused Nos.2 to 4. They secured bail.
5. Accused Nos.2 to 4 have filed Crl.P.No.4007/2022 and vide order dated 30.05.2022 secured stay of further proceedings so far as they are concerned.
6. Accused No.1 has also approached this Court in Crl.P.No.8366/2022. In the meanwhile, the charge sheet came to be filed as against accused No.1 in Spl.C.No.1628/2022. Vide order dated 07.02.2023, the further proceedings in Spl.C.No.1628/2022 came to be stayed.
7. In support of the petition, accused Nos.2 to 4 have contended that they have nothing to d
