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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 442092

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. M.I.ARUN, J
SRI SHANKAR S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10574 OF 2023 | (482 (Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. PRASAD VINOD GANAPATI
For the Respondents: SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR S.

The court ruled that consensual relationships cannot lead to criminal liability under the alleged offenses if there is a lack of evidence.

Headnote:This case concerns a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner who is accused of multiple offenses. The court analyzed the allegations against the petitioner, noting that the complainant, a married woman, had an illicit relationship with him. Regarding the charges of rape and cheating, the court found insufficient evidence to substantiate the claims and determined that the continuation of the trial would unjustly harass the petitioner, ultimately quashing the proceedings. The central issue considered was whether the petitioner could be held criminally liable given the nature of the relationship and facts presented which led to the conclusion that his actions did not constitute the alleged offenses. The result is that the petition is permitted, and the proceedings are quashed.

Table of Content
1. consent and relationship complexities. (Para 3 , 5)
2. sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases. (Para 4 , 6 , 7)
3. quashing of charges based on evidence. (Para 8 , 9)
4. outcome of petition and proceedings. (Para 10)

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is accused of the following in the police report filed in S.C.No.189/2023 pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Chamarajanagar:

2. Respondent No.2 is the complainant.

3. In short, respondent No.2 is a married woman having two children. She is a Hindu. She has neither divorced nor divorce proceedings are pending. According to her, she had an illicit affair with the petitioner who is a police constable and that he promised her to get married, but later on refused to marry her. Again, at the instance of certain village elders, he again agreed to marry her and took her on a motorbike to a field, where he tore her clothes, abused her verbally, threatened her and left her.

4. As aforementioned, the petitioner is accused of the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n), 417, 354B, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC . The same read as under:

"376. Punishment for rape.—(2) Whoever,—(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

417. Punishment for cheating.—Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

354B. Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe.—Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.— Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;"

5. The facts reveal that the complainant after having married and having two children, without divorcing or initiating divorce proceedings, had an illicit affair with the petitioner who is an unmarried man. As the petitioner and the complainant had consensual sex, the question of the petitioner raping the complainant does not arise.

6. Further, the complainant being married and there being no divorce proceedings or divorce being granted to her and she being a Hindu, question of the petitioner getting married to her does not arise and therefore she cannot allege that the petitioner has cheated her by refusing to marry her.

7. In respect of the allegations pertaining to the petitioner taking the respondent on a motorbike to a vacant field, disrobing and pushing her and abusing her under the circumstances, cannot be believed as there are no witnesses to the same as per the submission of the learned HCGP and that it is the word of the complainant against the word of the petitioner and the petitioner has categorically denied doing

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top