IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.882 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-1 …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

AND:

MITHUN KUMAR M @ PAVAN S/O MADHUKUMAR, 22 YEARS, R/AT 159, SHIVANANDANAGAR, Digitally MOODALAPALYA, signed by R MANJUNATHA BANGALORE CITY-560 072 Location: …RESPONDENT HIGH COURT (BY SRI P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

OF KARNATAKA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 07.05.2018 IN S.C.NO.65/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

2. None appears for the respondent/accused.

3. State is in revision challenging the order of discharge dated 07.05.2018 passed in S.C No.65/2017 by the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-54).

4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

Upon the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix, a crime came to be registered by Kamakshipalya Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 376, 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Police, after thorough investigation noted that accused having had the illicit forcible sexual intercourse with the complainant repeatedly, when she became pregnant, refused to marry her.

6. Upon collecting the necessary materials, police filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

7. Presence of the accused was secured before the Sessions Court after committal and accused filed an application seeking discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Prosecution filed detailed written objections.

8. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties, keeping in mind the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uday vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2003)4 SCC 46, held that prosecutrix was major when the incident has taken place and knowingfully well about the consequences of having a repeated sexual relationship, prosecutrix volunteered to have such relationship with the accused. Therefore, element of deceiving of prosecutrix or tainted consent was found in the attendant facts and as circumstances of the case, allowed the application of the accused and discharged the accused from the charges.

9. The said Order is under challenge before this Court by the State, in this revision petition.

10. Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would emphasize before this Court that prosecutrix is a rustic, illiterate villager. Therefore, consent if any that has been obtained by the accused is in the guise of marrying her which consent is not a free consent.

11. Therefore, prima facie ingredients are available to proceed with the case against the accused for the offence under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sought for allowing the revision petition.

12. Having heard the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is pertinent to note that except the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the statement of the prosecutrix has not been recorded before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

14. Further, admittedly, the prosecutrix is a major woman as on the date of the incident. They had repeated sexual intercourse and there is no material on record to show that that it was a forcible sexual int