Karnataka High Court
Yamanappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669
CRL.P No. 201775 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201763 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201775 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201763 OF 2025
IN CRL.P No. 201775/2025
BETWEEN:
1. YAMANAPPA S/O RANGAPPA
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BAGALAVADA VILLAGE
TALUK SIRWAR
DIST: RAICHUR-584129
DIST: RAICHUR-584126.
Digitally signed 2. TAYAMMA W/O YAMANAPPA
by SHIVALEELA AGE: 46 YEARS,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI OCC: HOUSEHOLD
Location: HIGH R/O BAGALAVADA VILLAGE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA TALUK SIRWAR
DIST: RAICHUR-584129
3. KRISHNA S/O YAMANAPPA
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BAGALAVADA VILLAGE
TALUK SIRWAR
DIST: RAICHUR-584129
4. VEENA W/O KRISHNA
AGE: 27 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669
CRL.P No. 201775 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201763 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O BAGALAVADA VILLAGE
TALUK SIRWAR
DIST: RAICHUR-584129
5. GHANARAJ S/O YAMANAPPA
AGE: 33 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BAGALAVADA VILLAGE
TALUK: SIRWAR
DIST: RAICHUR-584129
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI.
(THROUGH KOWTHAL P.S.,
DIST: RAICHUR-584129)
2. DURUGAMMA D/O SHIVARAJ
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT
R/O BAGALAVADA VILLAGE
TALUK: SIRWAR
DIST: RAICHUR-584129
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. B. C. JAKA ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
COGNIZANCE DATED 27.04.2024 AND CHARGE SHEET IN
S.C.NO.35/2024 (CRIME NO.10/2024) REGISTERED BY THE
KOWTHAL P.S., DIST. RAICHUR AND FURTHER ENTIRE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SECS. 143, 147, 323, 354, 376, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT
RAICHUR.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669
CRL.P No. 201775 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201763 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN CRL.P NO. 201763/2025
BETWEEN:
SRINIVAS S/O YAMANAPPA
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: BEKARI WORK,
R/O BAGALAVADA VILLAGE
TALUK SIRWAR, DIST: RAICHUR-584129
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI
(THROUGH KOWTHAL P.S.,
DIST. RAICHUR-584129)
2. DURUGAMMA D/O SHIVARAJ
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O BAGALAVADA VILLAGE
TALUK: SIRWAR
DIST: RIACHUR-584129
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. B. C. JAKA ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD),
U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 27.04.2024 AND CHARGE
SHEET IN S.C.NO.35/2024 (CRIME NO.10/2024)
REGISTERED BY THE KOWTHAL P.S., DIST: RAICHUR AND
FURTHER ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 143, 147, 323, 354, 376,
504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF
LEARNED PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669
CRL.P No. 201775 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201763 of 2025
HC-KAR
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
These two petitions are filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 in S.C No.35/2024, arising out of Crime No.10/2024, registered by the Kowthal Police, Raichur District, for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 323, 354, 376, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of Prl. Sessions Judge at Raichur.
2. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.201763/2025 is accused No.1 and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.201775/2025 are accused Nos.2 to 6.
3. The factual matrix of the case is, respondent No.2/complainant/victim lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police alleging that she and accused No.1 belong to the same caste and residing in the same village and they were in love for about 3 years and constantly in touch through phone. Respondent No.2 was studying in Dharwad and -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669 CRL.P No. 201775 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201763 of 2025 HC-KAR accused No.1 was working in a shop in Bagalkot. On 24.12.2022, he induced her and promised that he would marry her and upon such promise, she came to Bagalkot. Thereafter, accused taken her in his moped TVS Scooty No.KA-29/EG-4260 to his resident/room in Vidhyagiri, Bagalkot and respondent No.2 stayed there and at night, they both had sexual intercourse. Thereafter, on 11.05.2023, when she came to Bagalwad Village, accused No.1 called her and said that he want to talk to her. Though she did not agree, he forced her, as such, she went to his house. At that time, no one was there at his house and on that day also, he committed sexual intercourse on her. Thereafter, on 17.05.2023 and other dates, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 had sexual intercourse, as per the promise made by accused No.1 that he would marry her. Finally, she informed the same to her mother and they both approached accused No.1 and his family members for marriage talks. At that time, accused No.1 abused respondent No.2 and her mother in a filthy language and he also outraged the modesty of her mother. It is also alleged that, at that time, accused Nos.2 to 6 were present and they also abused respondent No.2 and her mother by saying that they would not -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669 CRL.P No. 201775 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201763 of 2025 HC-KAR perform the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2. As such, the complaint came to be registered in Crime No.10/2024 on 23.02.2024 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 354, 376, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against all these petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 323, 354, 376, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC by arraying the petitioners as accused Nos.1 to 6. Accordingly, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 preferred Criminal Petition No.201763/2025 and other accused preferred Criminal Petition No.201775/2025 to quash the proceedings against them.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 in both the petitions.
5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions is, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had consensual sexual act and they were in love ever since the college days of respondent No.2 and since -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669 CRL.P No. 201775 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201763 of 2025 HC-KAR she was major, the offence under Section 376 of IPC does not attract. He also contended that, accused No.1 at no point of time committed forcible sexual act, either by inducing or with the promise of marriage. As far as the act of denial of marriage by accused No.1 and the assault made by him and his family members on 14.02.2024 to respondent No.2 and her mother is concerned, the same cannot be believable, since the allegation made thereon is a vague and omnibus. Further, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, as the incident was caused on 14.02.2024, the complaint was lodged on 23.02.2024. In such circumstances, he prays to allow both the petitions.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP jointly opposed the prayer by contending that, now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners and there is an allegation against the petitioners that, apart from sexual act by accused No.1 with a promise to marry respondent No.2, on 14.02.2024, all the petitioners assaulted respondent No.2 and her mother by -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669 CRL.P No. 201775 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201763 of 2025 HC-KAR outraging her modesty. In such circumstances, both pray to dismiss the petitions.
7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the documents made available on record.
8. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that respondent No.2/victim is a major aged about 20 years at the time of incident. It is also not in dispute that she and accused No.1 were in love ever since the college days and they both were sexually active for a period of 2 years. It is the case of respondent No.2 that they both had sexual act ,based on the promise made by accused No.1 that he would marry her. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajneesh Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2025 (4) SCC 197 held that, when a women who willingly engages in a long term sexual relationship with a man, fully aware of its nature and without any cogent evidence to show that such relationship was induced by misconception of facts or false promise of marriage made in bad faith from the inception, the man cannot be held guilty of rape under Section 376 of IPC. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669 CRL.P No. 201775 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201763 of 2025 HC-KAR Thus it is clear that accused can be convicted for rape, only if the Court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was malafide, and that he had clandestine motives. The materials placed in the case are sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertion contained in the complaint that accusations are false. As such, the continuation of proceedings/trial would result in an abuse of process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice, specially, when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of accused.
9. Further, recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jothiragawan Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police and Another, held in paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 as under:
"11. We have already found that there is no promise of marriage to coerce consent from the victim for sexual intercourse; as forthcoming from the statements made by the victim. The promise if any was after the first physical intercourse and even later the allegation was forceful intercourse without any consent. In all the three instances it was the allegation that, the intercourse was on threat and coercion and there is no consent spoken of by the victim, in which case there cannot be any inducement found, on a promise held out. The allegation of forceful intercourse on threat and coercion is also not believable, given the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669 CRL.P No. 201775 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201763 of 2025 HC-KAR relationship admitted between the parties and the willing and repeated excursions to hotel rooms.
12. On a reading of the statements made by the victim before the Police, both the First Information Statement and that recorded later on, we are not convinced that the sexual relationship admitted by both the parties was without the consent of the victim. That they were closely related and were in a relationship is admitted by the victim. The allegation is also of threat and coercion against the victim, to have sexual intercourse with the accused, which even as per the victim's statement was repeated thrice in the same manner, when she willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room. The victim had also categorically stated that after the first incident and the second incident she was mentally upset, but that did not caution her from again accompanying the accused to hotel rooms.
13. Having heard both sides in this case, we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the criminal proceedings initiated against the present appellant are nothing but an abuse of process of the court. This is precisely a case where the High Court should have interfered in exercise of its inherent and extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. These proceedings cannot go on. Hence, we direct that the proceedings initiated at the instance of the complainant which are presently going on before Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Erode in S.C. No. 49 of 2022, be hereby quashed."
10. Collocating the above findings in the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that respondent No.2 was a consenting party and both the petitioner/accused No.1 and respondent No.2
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669 CRL.P No. 201775 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201763 of 2025 HC-KAR were sexually active for considerable period and they were in love. Further, the alleged incident dated 14.02.2024, when respondent No.2 and her mother approached accused No.1 and his family members, they assaulted them and outraged the modesty of the mother of respondent No.2, which seems to be doubtful for the reason that the incident was on 14.02.2024 and the complaint was lodged after lapse of a week. Further, vague and omnibus allegations are made that all these petitioners abused and assaulted respondent No.2 and her mother.
11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, except accused No.1 and her mother, all the other petitioners were residing separately and they nowhere connected to the alleged incident. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that, even if the entire allegations made in the charge sheet taken on its face value, no offences have been made out against these petitioners, for which they have been charge sheeted.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669 CRL.P No. 201775 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201763 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against these petitioners is abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER I) The petitions are allowed.
II) The proceedings in respect of
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 in
S.C No.35/2024, arising out of Crime
No.10/2024, registered by the Kowthal Police, Raichur District, for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 323, 354, 376, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of Prl. Sessions Judge at Raichur, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT-BH