IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103363 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

MEHABOOBALI S/O. ABDUANABI KURAGUND AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SAJJANSHETTAR PLOT, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI-581106.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BYADAGI POLICE STATION, BYADAGI CIRCLE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-581106.

2. HASEENABANU D/O. RAJESAB KATENAHALLI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. ISLAMPUR ONI, BYADAGI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by B DIST. HAVERI-581106.

K MAHENDRAKUMAR B K Location: HIGH …RESPONDENTS MAHENDRAKUMAR C KA O R U N R A T T O A F KA DHARWAD BENCH (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1;

Date: 2025.01.25 11:20:50 +0530 NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AS WELL AS ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C. NO.32/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2^ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, RANEBENNUR, REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 417, 420 AND 376(2) (n) OF IPC.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-accused has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 376, 417, 420 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner-

accused stating to be that he was in love with her and insisted to enter into a relationship and induced to have sexual intercourse by promising to marry.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-

State.

4. The survivor –respondent No.2 although served with notice did not choose to appear in person or through her counsel, therefore placed exparte.

5. Perusal of the charge sheet indicated that the petitioner-accused and the survivor were allegedly in relationship from 2017 till June 2022. The charge sheet material indicated that except the allegation that the petitioner induced the survivor to have sexual intercourse by promising to marry, there is no allegation or substantive evidence that the petitioner fraudulently obtained consent of the survivor to have sexual intercourse, and mere breach of promise to marry does not satisfy the essential elements of cheating and rape.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case MANDAR DEEPAK PAWAR AND ANOTHER supra has held as follows:

The appellant and respondent No.2 were undisputedly in a consensual relationship from 2009 to 2011 (or 2013 as stated by the respondent No.2). It is the say of the respondent No.2 that the consensual physical relationship was on an assurance of marriage by the appellant. The complaint has been filed only in 2016 after three years, pursuant whereto FIR dated 16.12.2016 was registered under Section 376 and 420, IPC.

On hearing learned counsel for parties, we find ex facie the registration of FIR in the present case is abuse of the criminal process.

The parties chose to have physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time.

For some reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or after marriage. Thereafter also three years passed when respondent No.2 decided to register a FIR.

The facts are so glaring as set out aforesaid by us that we have no hesitation in quashing the FIR dated 16.12.2016 and bringing the proceedings to a close. Permitting further proceedings under the FIR would amount to harassment to the appellant through the criminal process itself.

We are fortified to adopt this course of action by the judicial view in (2019) 9 SCC 608 titled “Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” where in the factual scenario where complainant was aware that there existed obstacles in marrying the accused and still continued to engage in