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.883 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY R.M.C YARD POLICE STATION BANGALORE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU – 01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

AND:

PRAVEEN KUMAR S THOTTAD S/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT CHINNAPURA S.K UNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT -587 103 …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by R (BY SRI S B HALLI, ADVOCATE)

MANJUNATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER Location:

SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE HIGH COURT OF PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.05.2018 KARNATAKA PASSED IN S.C.NO.291/2017 BY THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DISCHARGING ACCUSED-RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417,420,376 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. 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 and Sri S.B.Halli, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

2. State is in revision challenging the order of discharge passed by LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in S.C.No.291/2017 discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Order dated 05.05.2018.

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

4. Based on the complaint of the prosecutrix, RMC Yard police station, Bengaluru, registered a case against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Sections

417, 420, 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Complaint averments would go to show that in the guise of marrying the prosecutrix, accused said to have had repeated sexual intercourse with her. Later on, when the engagement ceremony was fixed by her parents, she intimated the same to the accused. But accused has emphatically denied to marry her and therefore, complaint came to be lodged.

6. Police, after registering the case, investigated the matter and during the course of investigation, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the jurisdiction Magistrate on

03.10.2016.

7. In the said statement, prosecutrix has stated before the Court that accused was her neighbour at Bagalakote District and they were childhood friends. About two years earlier, when she had been to Bagalakote, accused proposed her to marry.

8. At that juncture, prosecutrix told that she is not interested in the marriage and they can remain as good friends. But accused in order to have his desire fulfilled, promised her that he would marry her and in that regard, there used to be telephone calls by the accused. Thereafter, accused said to have told the prosecutrix that his decision to marry her is intact.

9. At that juncture, prosecutrix said to have informed the accused that her parents have fixed her engagement ceremony with Sri Sunil Kumar and marriage is fixed on 16^th November.

10. However accused insisted that their love affair should continue and he would marry her. He further cajoled the prosecutrix to leave her parents' house and come to Ilakal.

11. Accordingly, taking few jewels from her house, prosecutrix boarded the bus from Bengaluru and reached Ilakal next day at 06.00 p.m. wherein she was taken to a rented house.

12. When the prosecutrix insisted for marriage, accused said to have informed her that he will marry her after completion of the examination. With that promise, he made her to stay for about 10 days in the said house. During such stay, accused had four times sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and therefore sought for action.

13. Police, based on said statement of the victim, filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 470, 420