Karnataka High Court

Sri. Karthik vs State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2023

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                    -1-
                                                               NC: 2023:KHC:46419
                                                          CRL.P No. 13031 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                               BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT HANDANGOUDAR
                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13031 OF 2023
                        BETWEEN:

                        1.   SRI. KARTHIK,
                             S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
                             AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

                        2.   SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
                             S/O SRI. VENKATESHAPPA,
                             AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

                        3.   SMT. NAGAMANI,
                             W/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
                             AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

                        4.   RAKSHITH,
                             S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
Digitally signed by B
K                            AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                    ALL ARE R/AT NO.15, 303,
                             2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
                             SHUBASH NAGAR,
                             BHATTARAHALLI T.C. PALYA,
                             BANGALORE CITY - 560 036.
                                                               ...PETITIONERS
                        (BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
                            -2-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC:46419
                                     CRL.P No. 13031 of 2023




AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     BY K.R. PURAM POLICE STATION,
     KADUGODI,
     BANGALORE - 560 036,
     REP. BY SPP,
     HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
     BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.   MARY SHALINI,
     D/O SRI. SUNDER,
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.28,
     EAST END ROAD,
     NEAR CORMEL, CONUENT SCHOOL,
     JAYANAGAR,
     BANGALORE - 560 041.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI. S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


      THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.56500/2023
(CR.NO.486/2022)         FOR       THE        OFFENCE
P/U/S.376,493,417,506,34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE
10th ACMM MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGLAURU CASE
REGISTERED BY K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION BENGALURU
/Ist RESPONDENT.



     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              -3-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC:46419
                                    CRL.P No. 13031 of 2023




                        ORDER

Petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the

offences punishable under Sections 376, 493, 417, 506 r/w

34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 was

in relationship with the survivor and he introduced his

mother and promised that he would solemnize her marriage

with her and thereafter, had induced the survivor to have

sexual intercourse by promising to marry her and

thereafter, breached the promise to marry.

3. The petitioners and the survivor are present before

this Court and have filed an application under Section 320

of Cr.P.C. for compounding of the offence stating that they

have amicably resolved the dispute amongst themselves

and on the ill-advise, the FIR was lodged against the

petitioners. The 2nd respondent has further agreed to

withdraw all the allegations made against the petitioners

and has stated that there is no objection for quashing the

impugned proceedings. The application is placed on record.

NC: 2023:KHC:46419

4. Learned HCGP appearing for the State submits that

the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC is a

heinous crime against the Society and cannot be

compounded and sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. A perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that

the petitioner/accused No.1 and the survivor were in

relationship between 01.01.2018 till 13.11.2022 and there

is no material to substantiate that the petitioner No.1 by

promising to marry the 2nd respondent induced and

thereafter breached the promise to marry. It is submitted

that statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is recorded and

she has supported the case of the prosecution.

6. The Apex Court in the case of PRASHANT BHARTIYA v.

STATE OF DELHI has held as follows:

"Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material on record.

Respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the appellant had committed an offence under Section 376 of the

NC: 2023:KHC:46419

Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the accused (appellant) and respondent No.2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that the appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.

During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e., in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.

Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall be decided in accordance with law.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of."

NC: 2023:KHC:46419

The Apex Court, again in the case of K.DHANDAPANI v.

THE STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, has held as

follows:

"Leave granted.

The appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix belongs to Valayar community, which is a most backward community in the State of Tamilnadu. He works as a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him for committing rape under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was convicted after trial for committing the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur on 31.10.2018. The High Court, by an order dated 13.02.2019, upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this appeal.

Mr. M.P.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that allegation against him was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her. He stated that, in fact, he married the prosecutrix and they have two children.

The appellant submitted that this Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ought to do complete justice and it could not be in the interest of justice to disturb the family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.

NC: 2023:KHC:46419

After hearing the matter for some time on 08th March, 2022, we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has categorically stated that she has two children and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life.

Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle."

NC: 2023:KHC:46419

7. This Court in V.PRABHU v. STATE OF KARNAТАКА

AND ANOTHER has held as follows:

"2. This petition is filed by the petitioner- accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.28042/2021 pending on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District arising out of Cr.No.121/2021 registered by Kadugodi police station for the offences punishable under Section 417, 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC').

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. During the pendency of this petition, both the parties, the petitioner and respondent No.2, have filed joint compromise application under section 320 read with 482 of Cr.P.C. Respondent No.2 and the petitioner submitted that they have compounded the offences and responded No.2 submits no objection for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Both petitioner and respondent No.2 along with their counsels have appeared through video conference and the parties were identified by the respective counsel.

5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had sexual intercourse with the respondent No.2 under the pretext of marrying her, therefore the complaint came to be filed. Subsequently, both decided to resile from each other and compounded the offence, therefore both of them filed joint application for closing the matter. In view of the submission of both the

NC: 2023:KHC:46419

parties having compounded the offence and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another wherein it is laid down where the parties have settled the dispute between them and the same is not affected to the public, the Court can quash the proceedings. In view of the same, parties have settled the dispute amicably and therefore I.A.No.4/2022 requires to be allowed.

Accordingly, Ι.Α.No.4/2022 is allowed and subsequently, Criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C in C.C.No.28042/2021 pending on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District arising out of Cr.No. 121/2021 registered by Kadugodi police station for the offences punishable under Section 417, 376 of IPC, is hereby quashed."

Again, this Court in H.S.CHANDAN ν. STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER has held as follows:

"7. Respondent No.2 in CrL.P.No.1111/2022 has filed a complaint against the petitioner-Chandan H.S for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC as the petitioner is said to be committed rape on her on the promise of marriage and the mother of the petitioner and accused have filed complaint against the victim for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 506 and 201 of IPC which is nothing but case and counter case filed between the parties.

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46419

8. The counsel for respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 Crl.P.No.1116/2022 also appeared before the Court. Victim also present before the Court submits that the matter has been amicably settled between them. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2012 CRI.L.J.4934 wherein, it has been held that in cases where the parties have settled the dispute between them, the Court can quash the proceedings and this Court in various cases has also granted permission to quash the criminal proceedings even the offences under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC is involved. Even in view of amicable settlement between the parties and in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh stated supra, when the parties have settled their dispute amicably, the Court can quash the criminal proceedings. This Court in the case of Ismail vs. The State of Karnataka and another in Crl.P.No.2031/2020, dated 11.02.2022 and in the case of V. Prabhu vs. State of Karnataka and another in Crl.P.No.8754/2021, dated 19.01.2022 has quashed the criminal proceedings in similar circumstances.

9. Therefore, in view of the settlement between the parties, the compromise filed by both the parties in both the case are accepted and permitted to compound their offences. Accordingly both the cases are allowed.

10. The criminal proceedings against the parties in Crl.P.No.1111/2021 in respect of S.C.No.838/2021 (Crime No.28/2021) pending on the file of LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-54) for the

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46419

offence punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 313 of IPC and in Crl.P.No.1116/2022 in respect of C.C.No.25328/2021 (Crime No.28/2021) registered by Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 506, 201 of IPC are hereby quashed."

8. It is also germane to notice the judgment of the High

Court of Delhi in LALIT KUMAR VATS v. STATE OF NCT

OF DELHI AND ANOTHER whereby the Delhi High Court

quashed the proceedings in an allegation pertaining to

Section 376 of the IPC. The judgment rendered by the Delhi

High Court reads as follows:

"3. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction thereby for quashing of FIR No.381 of 2020 dated 10-08-2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 IPC registered at Police Station Kapashera, New Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom.

4. Notice issued.

5. Notice is accepted by learned APP for State and by the respondent No.2 and with the consent of counsel for parties, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.

6. The present petition is filed on the ground that matter has been compromised between petitioner and the prosecutrix.

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46419

7. The Prosecutrix is personally present in Court and has been identified by W/SI Chandra Kanta/IO of the case. She states that FIR was lodged out of anger reason being she and petitioner had an altercation on 9-08-2020. To this effect, she has not only filed affidavit but she also sought apology from this Court.

8. Since prosecutrix has made wrong statement which culminated into the present FIR, therefore, she is liable to be prosecuted under the law, however, she seeks unconditional apology and submits that she is a married woman having two children and her matrimonial life will be destroyed if the present case is sent for trial.

9. Her unconditional apology is accepted.

10. AS per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbat Bhai Aahir and others v. State of Gujarat and other (AIR 2017 SC 4843), the FIR should not be quashed in case of rape as i9t is an henious offence, but when the respondent No. 2/complainant/prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and file affidavits before this Court, stating that she made the complaint due to some mis-understanding and now wants to give quietus to the mis-understanding which arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, in my considered opinion, in such cases, there will be no purpose in continuing with the trial. Ultimately, if such direction is issued, the result will be of acquittal in favour of the accused, but substantial public time shall be wasted.

11. This Court is conscious about the dictum of the Supreme Court in terms of seriousness of the case, however, keeping in

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46419

view the settlement arrived between the parties, this Court is inclined to quash the present FIR as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioner any further. Moreover, petitioner is a well educated person. He holds various educational degrees including MBA and CS- Executive, as evidenced by the documents annexed hereto as Annexure-P6. The petitioner is currently preparing for CS- Professional and UPSC examinations. Continuation of the proceedings will affect his prospects in clearing examinations.

12. For the reasons afore-recorded, quashing of FIR No.381/2020 dated 10-08-2020, registered at Police Station - Kapashera, New Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

13. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of."

9. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex

Court and also having regard to the future prospects of the

survivor and if the petitioners are subjected to trial the

probability of their conviction being remote and bleak, it

would be appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings.

Accordingly, I pass the following :-

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46419

ORDER

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.56500/2023 on

the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, stands quashed.