Karnataka High Court
Rakesha H.M vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19703
CRL.P No. 3841 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3841 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
RAKESHA H.M.
S/O, MOHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT, SATHYAMANGALA
KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN-01
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP.K.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY HASSAN WOMEN POLICE STATION
HASSAN DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. RANI H.N
D/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CHANDANA R/AT, SATHYAMANGALA
BM KASABA HOBLI,
Location: HASSAN-01
High Court
of Karnataka ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.24/2024
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376,420,504,506 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19703
CRL.P No. 3841 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"WHEREFORE, the petitioner in the above petition
most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.24/2024 pending on
the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan
for the offence punishable U/S 376, 420, 504, 506 of IPC in
the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent
No.2 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on
the basis of the complaint dated 03.06.2023 filed by respondent
No.2 against the petitioner inter alia alleging that she had
consensual relationship with him since 2020 on the false pretext of
marriage, the petitioner was guilty of the offences punishable under
Sections 376, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC. The respondent-Police
conducted investigation and have filed charge sheet dated
12.07.2023, which is currently pending in S.C.No.24/2024 before
the Sessions Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:19703
HC-KAR
4. It is the specific contention urged by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the Apex Court has repeatedly held
that having consensual relationship for a longer duration under the
false pretext of marriage would not constitute the alleged offences
against the petitioner and places reliance upon the following
judgments:
i) Prashant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi - 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3375.
ii) Jothiragawan Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of
Police and Another - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 628.
iii) Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471.
5. In the case of Prashant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
(supra), the Apex Court held as under:
"19. In our view, taking the allegations in the FIR and
the charge-sheet as they stand, the crucial ingredients of the
offence under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC are absent. A review of
the FIR and the complainant's statement under Section 164
Cr.PC discloses no indication that any promise of marriage
was extended at the outset of their relationship in 2017.
Therefore, even if the prosecution's case is accepted at its
face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant
NC: 2025:KHC:19703
HC-KAR
engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant solely on
account of any assurance of marriage from the appellant.
The relationship between the parties was cordial and also
consensual in nature. A mere breakup of a relationship
between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of
criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship
between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a
colour of criminality when the said relationship does not
fructify into a marital relationship. Further, both parties are
now married to someone else and have moved on in their
respective lives. Thus, in our view, the continuation of the
prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross
abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose would be
served by continuing the prosecution.
20. The ingredients of criminal intimidation are threat
to another person, inter alia, with any injury to his person,
reputation with intent to cause alarm to that person or to
cause that person to any act which he is not legally bound to
do. In the instant case, as already noted, the relationship
between the appellant and the complainant was consensual
in nature. In fact, they wanted to fructify the relationship into
marriage. It is in that context that they indulged in sexual
activity. Therefore, there cannot be a case of criminal
intimidation involved as against the complainant. We do not
find that there was any threat caused to the complainant by
the appellant when all along there was cordiality between
them and it was only when the appellant got married in the
year 2019 that the complainant filed a complaint. In the
circumstances, we do not think that the offence under
NC: 2025:KHC:19703
HC-KAR
Section 503 read with Section 506 of the IPC has been
made out in the instant case."
6. In the case of Jothiragawan Vs. State Rep. by the
Inspector of Police and Another (supra), the Apex Court held 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 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."
7. In the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another (supra), the Apex Court held as under:
NC: 2025:KHC:19703
HC-KAR
" 22. In our view, if a man is accused of having
sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage
and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical
relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise
made and not qualified by other circumstances or
consideration. A woman may have reasons to have physical
relationship other than the promise of marriage made by the
man, such as personal liking for the male partner without
insisting upon formal marital ties. Thus, in a situation where
physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period
knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty
that the said physical relationship was purely because of the
alleged promise made by the appellant to marry her. Thus,
unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was
purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having
a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being
influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that
there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact."
8. The complaint dated 20.06.2023 given by the
complainant to the respondent No.1 - Police reads as under:
" UÉ,
DgÀPÀëPÀ ¤jÃPÀëgÀÄ,
ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉ,
ºÁ¸À£À.
EAzÀ,
gÁtÂ
D/O ¯ÉÃmï £ÀAeÉÃUËqÀ
37 ªÀµÀð, ªÀPÀÌ°UÀgÀÄ
¸ÀvÀåªÀÄAUÀ® £ÀUÀgÀ ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À.
NC: 2025:KHC:19703
HC-KAR
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ; gÁPÉÃ±ï ºÉZï. J£ï. S/O ªÉÆúÀ£ï PÀĪÀiÁgÀ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ
£À£ÀߣÀÄß ¦æÃw¹ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ £À£ÀߣÀÄß zÉÊ»PÀªÁV §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ
FUÀ PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀåªÀÄAUÀ®zÀ°è ¨ÁrUÉ
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ £Á®ÄÌ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸À«zÀÝ PÀlÖqÀzÀ°è
gÁPÉÃ±ï ºÉZï J£ï, ªÉÆúÀ£ï PÀĪÀiÁgÀ ¸ÀºÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. FUÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ
ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ CAzÀgÉ 2020 gÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÁV E§âgÀÄ ¸ÉßûvÀgÁV
¸À®ÄUɬÄAzÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ E§âgÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ ¦æÃw¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ gÁPÉÃ±ï £À£ÀUÉ
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ £Á£ÀÄ M§â¼Éà ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀĪÁUÀ gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 15-1-20 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 11:30 D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ
£Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð
£ÀqɹgÀÄvÁÛ£É. EzÉà jÃw £Á£ÀÄ PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ §AzÁUÀ gÁwæ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è §®ªÀAvÀªÁV
£Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀªÉAzÀgÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß PÉüÀzÉ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ C¸À¨Àås ªÁV PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß
ªÉÄ¯É CvÀåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É. EzÉà jÃw £À«Ää§âgÀ ¸ÀA§AzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ
£ÀqÉAiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DUÉÆÃt JAzÀgÉ gÁPÉÃ±ï £Á£ÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀÄ MAzÉà EzÉÃ
jÃw zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¨É¼É¹PÉÆAqÀÄ JAzÀÄ C¸À¨Àås ªÁV ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ £Á£ÀÄ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß
CªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä zÀPÀëuÉUÉ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ CPÀÌ gÀAfvÀªÀjUÉ gÁPÉÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß
«µÀAiÀĪÁV w½¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀªÁåZÀ ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ¤£Àß ªÀÄAiÀiÁðzÉ
ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÀÛzÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉãÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è £ÀªÀÄä «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ §AzÀgÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ¸ÀĪÀÄä£É
©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¸Á¬Ä¹ ©qÀÄvÁÛ£É JAzÀÄ PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀt PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ EzÀ£ÀÄß E°èUÉ ©lÄÖ©qÀÄ JAzÀÄ
¸ÀºÀ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀÄ JAzÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¤£ÀߣÀÄß DQìqÉAmï ªÀiÁr ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ¤£Àß PÉ®¸ÀPÀÆÌ ¸ÀºÀ
vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ vÉUÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £À£ÀUÉ
zÉÆqÀØ zÉÆqÀØ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«zÉ £Á£ÀÄ K£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ
¨ÉzÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É £À£Æ
É ßA¢UÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPï ¨É¼É¹ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ gÁPÉñÀ£À ªÉÄïÉ
ºÁUÀÆ PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀ CªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä zÁPÁë¬Ät ºÁUÀÆ gÀAfvÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄïÉ
NC: 2025:KHC:19703
HC-KAR
PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É ºÁUÀÆ gÁdå
¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw PÀgÉzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ¨ÁgÀzÀ PÁgÀt F ¢£À vÀqÀªÁV §AzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ
¤ÃqÀÄgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ,
¢£ÁAPÀ: 03/06/2023.
¢£ÁAPÀ; 03/06/2023 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 8:15 UÀAmÉUÉ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ oÁuÉUÉ
ºÁdgÁV ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹ oÁuÁ ªÉÆ,£ÀA. 50/2023 PÀ®A 376, 120, 504,
506, 34 L¦¹ jÃwAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
9. As is clear from the aforesaid complaint, respondent
No.2 has specifically stated that there was consensual sexual
relationship between her and petitioner from 15.01.2020 onwards
by the petitioner specifically promising to marry her and the same
cannot be treated nor construed as the offences punishable under
Section 376 of IPC. Under these circumstances, in the light of the
material on record and the principle enunciated in the decisions of
the Apex Court (supra), continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law and
the same deserves to be quashed.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:19703
HC-KAR
ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in S.C.No.24/2024
(arising out of Crime No.50/2023, registered by
respondent No.1-Police), pending on the file of the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in so far as
the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BMC
