SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38509

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA
MR FAKIRAPPA HATTI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 11014/2024



Reserved on : 09.09.2025 Pronounced on : 25.10.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11014 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

MR.FAKIRAPPA HATTI S/O MAHADEVAPPA HATTI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT C/O MAHESWARAMMA’S HOUSE 3RD CROSS, MAHADESHWARI NAGAR MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU – 560 048 ALSO AT NEGINHAL VILLAGE AND POST BAILAHONGALA TALUK BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 591 102.

... PETITIONER (BY SMT.ABHINAYA K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHADEVPURA P.S (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 . MS.XXXXX D/O XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;

SRI MOHAN KUMAR D., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 )

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UPON THE FILING OF THE CHARGE SHEET FOR P/U/S 376, 417, 323 AND 506 OF IPC IN CR.NO.80/2022 OF THE RESPONDENT P.S., PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY, AT BENGALURU IN SC.NO.1316/2023.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.1316 of 2023 pending before LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City arising out of charge sheet in Crime No.80 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 376, 417 and 506 of the IPC.

2. Heard Smt. K. Abhinaya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri D. Mohan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts which lie in a narrow compass, but are coloured with the hues of human relationships are briefly set-forth:

It is the case of the prosecution that in the month of October, 2019 a dispute had arisen between the complainant/2nd respondent and her house owner in respect of refund of advance amount paid towards lease of the house. In that connection, the complainant approaches the Police Station in which the petitioner was on duty. When the complainant sought to register a complaint against the house owner, the petitioner is said to have taken the number of complainant’s mobile on the score that it would be necessary to ask her to come to the station if needed. Exchange of messages began at that point in time and relationship between the two i.e., the petitioner and the complainant goes on from October, 2019 till the date of registration of complaint i.e., on 15-01-2022. The complaint is not registered before the jurisdictional police station. A private complaint comes to be registered invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The matter was referred for investigation and on such reference, a crime in Crime No.80 of 2022 comes to be registered. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner in C.C.No.54482 of 2023, which then comes to be committed to the Court of Session in the light of the offence being punishable under Section 376 of the IPC also and the proceeding is pending before the Court of Session in S.C.No.1316 of 2023. It is the said proceeding that is challenged in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Smt. K. Abhinaya would vehemently contend that a pure consensual relationship between the two is projected to become an offence of rape. She would contend that the complainant, as on the date of registration of complaint, was married and having three children. There was no question of petitioner rendering promise to marry the complainant who had already married and having three children. The relationship between the two go on for three years and when the complainant comes to know that the family members of the petitioner are trying to g

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top