Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By vs Vijaykumar @ Vijikumar @ Viji on 22 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27650
CRL.RP No. 917 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 917 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SAMPIGE HALLI POLICE STATION
BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-01
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SPP.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
VIJAYKUMAR @ VIJIKUMAR @ VIJI
S/O LATE RAMESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27650
CRL.RP No. 917 of 2018
HC-KAR
R/AT I MAIN,
TANGAMALAINAGAR
NEAR VINAYAKA TALKIES
D G HALLI,
BENGALURU-560045
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANEES ALI KHAN.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
S.P.P FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL RP AND
SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 13.06.2018, IN
S.C.NO.145/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE (CCH-54).POST CRL.RP BEFORE COURT FOR
ADMISSION.PNK270818
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:27650
CRL.RP No. 917 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The State has preferred this Revision Petition against
the order dated 13.06.2018 passed on application filed
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by the Court of LIII Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-54) in
S.C.No.145/2017.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
Revision Petition are referred to as per their status and
rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this Revision Petition are
that the Police Inspector of Sampigehalli Police Station has
submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of Indian
Penal Code.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused on
the guise of love affair, persuaded complainant to have a
physical relationship with him and took her to a store
room situated near the lift at Manyata Tech-park retail
NC: 2025:KHC:27650
HC-KAR
area and had sexual intercourse with complainant on
04.06.2016. Again after lapse of one month from the date
of incident, he repeated the same with complainant. On
05.10.2016, due to pain in abdomen, complainant went to
hospital for checkup wherein it was confirmed that she is
pregnant. Thereafter, the complainant and her relatives
informed about the pregnancy to the accused and advised
him to marry the complainant. But the accused refused to
marry the complainant stating that he is in no way
concerned with the said incident and thereby deceived her.
As such, the police have submitted the charge sheet
against the accused for the alleged offences.
4. After filing of charge sheet, a case was
registered against the accused in C.C.No.1790/2017.
Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions and registered in S.C.No.145/2017. Before the
Sessions Court, an application under Section 227 of Code
of Criminal Procedure was filed seeking to discharge the
accused for the alleged commission of offence as there is
NC: 2025:KHC:27650
HC-KAR
no material to attract the alleged commission of offence
punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal
Code. Before framing of charges against the accused for
the commission of alleged offences, the Trial Court has
passed an order on application filed under Section 227 of
Cr.P.C., holding that there is no prima-facie material to
proceed against the accused for the offence punishable
under Sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the State has
preferred this revision petition.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by
Sri. B Lakshman, High Court Government Pleader for State
and also examined the material placed before this Court.
6. In the charge sheet, it is alleged by the police as
under:
" F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA¦UɺÀ½î ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÁ
¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÁ mÉPï ¥ÁPïð£À r.n.J¸ï. PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è ºË¸ï
QæAUï PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ E°èAiÉÄà PÁ®A £ÀA.3gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ
DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ §Æè¨É¯ï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è ºË¸ï QæAUï PÉ®¸À
ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, FvÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV
ºÉýPÉÆArzÀݪÀ£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:04.06.2016gÀAzÀÄ ªÀizsÁåºÀß 3.00 UÀAmÉ
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÁ mÉPï ¥ÁPïð£À jmÉïï KjAiÀiÁzÀ
2£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
NC: 2025:KHC:27650
HC-KAR
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV ºÉý §®ªÀAvÀªÁV °¥ïÖ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ¸ÉÆÖÃgï gÀÆAUÉ
PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, CzÉà jÃw ªÀÄvÉÛ MAzÀÄ
wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.10.2016 gÀAzÀÄ
¨É½UÉÎ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉÆmÉÖ £ÉÆêÀÅ PÁt¹PÉÆArzÀÝjAzÀ aQvÉìUÉ
qÁ.©.Dgï.CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, C°è£À ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ ¥ÀjÃQë¹ ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀgÀÄ UÀ©üðt JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ
DgÉÆæUÉ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ
CzÀPÉÌ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÀÆ EzÀPÀÆÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀA§AzsÀ«®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉý
ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¹ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®A ¥ÀæPÁgÀ DgÉÆæ «gÀÄzÀÝ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ
¸À°è¹zÉ."
7. The Trial Court, in the impugned judgment at
Paragraph No.6, has observed thus:
"In pursuance of complaint dated 05.10.2016
given by complainant herein to the complainant-
police, First Information Report came to be
registered against accused in Cr.No.177/2016
under Section 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.
Complainant CW.1 was subjected to medical
examination at Bowring hospital and later her
statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate
under Section164 of Cr.P.C. on 26.10.2016. Spot
mahazar was conducted by complainant-police on
05.1.0.2016 at Manyata Tech Park, retail area,
recorded the statement of witnesses and filed
charge sheet against accused before the learned
Magistrate. In the complaint dated 05.10.2016,
complainant stated that since 7 months she has
been working at Manyata Tech Park, DTS company
and doing house keeping job, in the same place
accused was working and doing house keeping job
at blue bell company and both of them came in
acquaintance with each other. She has also stated
that accused was back of her asking her
willingness to marry him. However, she told
accused that she will inform at home and let him
know. On 04.06.2016, when she was on duty,
accused came there and informed complainant
NC: 2025:KHC:27650
HC-KAR
that he is going to marry her and taken to one
room and had sexual intercourse with her, though
she tried to resist the act of accused in all aspects
she could not succeeded. Later, she went home
without informing the incident to anybody. Even
after this incident accused was pressurized the
complainant to marry him. After lapse of one
month from this incident, accused again taken
complainant forcibly to 3rd floor retail area and had
forcible sexual intercourse with her. She kept
quite thinking that accused is going to marry her
anyhow. Now, accused refusing to marry
complainant and hence she requested
complainant-police to take action against accused
who cheated her without marrying her and
involving with her physically. In pursuance of this
complaint, CW.1 was subjected to medical
examination at Bowring Hospital, wherein
concerned doctor has recorded the history which is
available in OPD card of CW.1 as 'history of love
affair with Mr. Vijayakumar since 6 months,
history of sexual contact twice till now, once in
June, 2016 and one more in July 2016. He has
promised her, he would marry her but later denied
for the same. Hence patient wants MTP and DNA
test of the fetus'. This is the history of CW.1
recorded by the concerned doctor. Before doctor,
CW.1 has not made any allegation of forcible
sexual intercourse on her by accused. If accused
committed rape on CW.1 on June, 2016, there was
no reason for complainant to keep silent all along
for one and half year i.e., till 05.10.2016. If once
accused committed such act, there was no reason
for complainant to again accompanied accused
towards retail area of Manyata Tech Park.
Complainant is not making any single allegation of
sexual intercourse by accused with her. In
Anjanappa vs. State of Karnataka, the Hon'ble
High Court held that there is no ingredient to
satisfy the requirement under Section 375 of
Indian Penal Code as the prosecutrix had
NC: 2025:KHC:27650
HC-KAR
consented to sexual intercourse by the accused
and was out of her free will and consent. Further,
this matter went up to Hon'ble Apex Court.
Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision reported in AIR
2003 SC 1639 observed that "accused expressed
love and promise to marry prosecutrix, on later
date, if for any reason accused refused to marry
prosecutrix same will not amount to rape. It is the
contention of complainant that accused had sexual
intercourse with her on June 2016 and again
during July 2016 at working place. Complainant
has accompanied accused to the store room. As
per history recorded by concerned doctor referred
supra complainant was a consenting party for the
sexual activity taken place between on two
occasions narrated in her complaint. If
complainant was not a willing party, there was no
reason for complainant to accompany accused
inspite of such incident taken place again at
working place in the month of July 2016. There is
also delay in lodging the complaint. Complainant
being educated adult lady capable of
understanding the consequences of accompanying
male person to store room and she has done such
act at her own peril. The only allegation available
against accused is of breach of promise to marry.
The complainant had not been able to provide any
material to demonstrate that she had been
subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by
accused. There is no injury on the private part of
the victim as per medical records issued by
Bowring hospital. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Dilip Singh Vs. State of Bihar decided
on 3.11.2004 observed that when a man promises
to marry a woman and even had a physical
relationship with her and subsequently marriage
cannot come through it cannot be said that an
offence either of offences under Section 376 or
under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code is made.
In such a case, the liability could only be under
civil law for damages. Relying upon these
NC: 2025:KHC:27650
HC-KAR
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
also Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka this Court
opines that there are no sufficient material to
proceed against accused for the offence
punishable under Section 376 and 420 of Indian
Penal Code. Accordingly, I have answered point
No.1 in the Negative."
8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
decision rendered in the case of JOTHIRAGAWAN v. STATE
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER,
reported in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6821 of 2024
decided on 24.03.2025, has observed as under:
"7. We have gone through the First
Information Statement made by the complainant and
the statement given before the Police which would
form the basis of the trial. Unless the ingredients of
an offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. comes
forth from these documents; which read together
reveal identical statements, there cannot be any
continuation of the prosecution. In this context, we
also have to notice Prithivirajan from which
paragraph 7 is extracted hereunder:
"7. The instant case is one of
consensual relationship between the
appellant and prosecutrix. Even otherwise,
it does not appear from the record that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27650
HC-KAR
the initial promise to marry allegedly
made by the appellant was false to begin
with. Perusal of FIR itself suggests that
the alleged promise to marry could not be
fulfilled by the appellant due to
intervening circumstances. Consequently,
the relationship ended because of which
the present FIR came to be registered.
Under these circumstances, letting the
appellant face trial would be nothing short
of an abuse of the process of the Court.
This cannot be permitted."
9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decision and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, so
also the reasons assigned by the trial Court to discharge
the accused, I do not find any error/legal infirmities in the
impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
10. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal revision petition is dismissed;
ii. The order dated 13.06.2018 passed on
application filed under Section 227 of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27650
HC-KAR
Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.145/2017 on the file of
the Court of LIII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-54) is
hereby confirmed;
iii. Registry is directed to send a copy of this
order along with trial court records
forthwith, to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
SSD
