Karnataka High Court
Suresh Maruti Arabhanvi S/O Maruti ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14956
CRL.P No. 102751 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102751 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SURESH MARUTI ARABHANVI S/O. MARUTI ARABHANVI,
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. FACTORY EMPLOYEE,
R/O: LAKKAMMA ONI, PARSAGAD
MUGALIHALA VILLAGE, TQ: YARAGATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI - 591 129.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH MURAGODA POLICE,
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD 580 011.
2. SAVITRI HATTI D/O. YALLAPPA HATTI,
Digitally signed by AGE: 24, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL R/O: MUGALIHAL VILLAGE,
Location: High TQ: YARAGATI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129.
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, ... RESPONDENTS
Dharwad (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND
FIR, CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.272/2023 REGISTERED BY THE
MURAGOD POLICE STATION, MURAGOD, IN SC NO.15/2024 FOR THE
OFFENCES U/S 376(2) (n) AND 506 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE
BEFORE THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI
AND ALL ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THEREIN IN RESPECT
OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED HEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14956
CRL.P No. 102751 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
the proceedings in S.C. No.15 of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC.
2. Heard the Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the sole accused and the learned AGA appearing for
the respondent - State, the defacto complainant though served
remains unrepresented.
3. The facts in brief germane are as follows.
The second respondent is the complainant. The
complainant and the petitioner are said to have become friends,
close to three years prior to the registration of the complaint.
The friendship appears to have blossomed into a relationship and
the relationship gets physical as well. The relationship goes on
for over two and a half years. When the complainant receives the
information that the accused is wanting to marry someone else,
she registers the complaint before the jurisdictional Police on
11.09.2023, alleging that the petitioner repeatedly raped her on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14956
HC-KAR
the score of false promise of marriage. The Police conduct
investigation upon the said complaint and file a charge sheet for
offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC.
After filing of the charge sheet, the matter is committed to the
Court of Sessions and now presently pending as S.C. No.15 of
2024. The petitioner-accused is before the Court calling in
question the entire proceedings before the concerned Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Shri Avinash Angadi would vehemently contend that the
allegation of false promise of marriage is contrary to the facts.
The learned counsel would contend that the marriage did not
take place for a long time owing to several factors, one of which
was due to the affair, the complainant had with someone else.
For this reason, the marriage does not take place, but the
consensual acts go on for over two and a half years. The learned
counsel would further submit that the other offences alleged also
would not merit any consideration as the acts complained of are
consensual.
5. The learned AGA would vehemently refute the
submissions contending that the police after investigation have
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14956
HC-KAR
filed a charge sheet and therefore the petitioner should come out
clean. He would further contend that the offence is of repeated
rape and therefore this Court should not entertain the petition
and obliterate the proceedings on the say of the petitioner.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the AGA.
7. The aforesaid narrated facts are a matter of record.
Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I
deemed it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint
reads as follows:
jUÉ,
¥ÉÆð¸ï E£Àì¥ÉPÀÖgï ¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ.
ªÀÄÄgÀUÉÆÃqÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉ.
£Á£ÀÄ ¸Á«wæ vÀAzÉ AiÀÄ®è¥Àà, ºÀaÑ, ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì-24 ªÀµÀð, eÁw- »AzÀÆ
PÀÄgÀĪÀgÀ, GzÉÆåÃUÀ- ªÀÄ£ÉPÉ®¸À ¸Á/ªÀÄÄUÀ½zÁ¼À vÁ/AiÀÄgÀUÀnÖ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.
8951796928 §gɹ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¦gÁå¢ K£ÉAzÀgÉ.
£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄð£À «¼Á¸ÀzÀªÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÄÝ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä AiÀÄ®ªÀé
AiÀÄ®è¥Àà, ºÀnÖ ºÁUÀÆ CtÚ FgÀ¥Àà F ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÀÆr EzÀÄÝ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ wÃjPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£ÀªÀÄÆäj£À £ÀªÄÀ ä ¸ÀªiÀ ÁdzÀ ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ, ªÀiÁgÀÄw. DgÀA¨Á« EªÀ£ÄÀ £À£ÀUÉ JgÀqÀĪÀgÉ
ªÀµÀðzÀ »AzÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÁVzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À«Ää§âgÀ £ÀqÄÀ ªÉ ¦æÃw ¨É¼É¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ CgÀA¨sÁ«
EªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£Àß ¦æÃw ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÄÀ Ý ªÀÄÄAzï £Á«§âgÄÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÉÆîÃt
CAvÀ ºÉý £À£ÀUÉ £ÀA©¹ £À£Æ É ßA¢UÉ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj ®ÉÊAVPÀ ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 6 wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DUÉÆÃt CAvÀ PÉýzÀgÉ E£ÀÆß 15 ¢£À vÀr, MAzÀÄ
wAUÀ¼À vÀr CAvÀ C£ÀÄßvÁÛ FUÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è M¥ÀÅàwÛ®è. ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÀÄqÀÄVUÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ C£ÀÄßwÛzÁÝ£É. PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄzÁV ±ÀÄPÀæªÁgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 8/9/2023 gÀAzÀÄ
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14956
HC-KAR
¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¸À«ÄÃ¥À ¸ÀAqÁ¸ÀPÌÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ DgÀA¨sÁ« EªÀ£ÄÀ
£À£ÀUÉ ¨sÉÃn DUÀ®Ä ªÀÄÄvÀÛ¥àÀ PÀwÛ EªÀgÀ ºÉÆ®zÀ°è §A¢zÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ
ZÀað¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝ£É CªÀ£ÄÀ £À£ÀUÉ PɼÀUÉ ªÀÄ®V¹ £À£Æ
É ßA¢UÉ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ.
DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ aÃgÁr ¨Á¬Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £À£ßÀ CtÚ FgÀ¥àÀ , AiÀÄ®è¥àÀ , ºÀnÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄÆäj£À §¸ÀÄì
¨É¼À¨Á¬Ä EªÀgÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ CµÀÖgÀ°è ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ, CgÀA¨sÁ« EªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ C°èAiÉÄà ©lÄÖ F
«µÀAiÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÁzÀgÆ
À ºÉýzÀgÉ ¤£ÀUÉ fêÀAvÀ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÀ fêÀzÀ zsÀªÀÄQ ºÁPÀÄvÀÛ
Nr ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ. DUÀ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄ gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀÄgÀÄ 8-00 UÀAmÉ DVvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ £À£ßÀ CtÚ¤UÉ §¸ÀÄì
zÀ¼ÀªÁ¬Ä EªÀ¤UÉ WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÉýzÉ£ÄÀ . CªÀgÄÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ.
¸ÀÄgÉñÀ, ªÀiÁgÀÄw DgÀA¨sÁ«, ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì-28 ªÀµÀð ¸Á/ªÀÄÄUÀ½zÁ¼À, vÁ-AiÀÄgÀUÀnÖ
EªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DUÀĪÀzÁV ºÉý ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ JgÀqÄÀ ªÀgÉ ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ¦æÃw ªÀÄr
£À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ºÀ®ªÀgÄÀ ¨Áj ¯ÉÊAVPÀ ¸ÀA¨sÆ É ÃUÀ ªÀÄrzÀÄÝ C®èzÃÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 8/9/2023 gÀAzÀÄ
gÁwæ 8-00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀAqÁ¸ÀPÌÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ. CgÀ¨sÁ« EªÀ£ÄÀ
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÁqÀ°PÉÌ §AzÀÄ d§j¬ÄAzÀ £À£Æ É ßA¢UÉ ®ÉÊAVPÀ ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁr
F «µÀAiÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýzÀgÉ fêÀAvÀ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÀ £À£ÀUÉ fêÀzÀ zsÀªÀÄQ ºÁQ
ºÉÆÃVzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀĪÀÄä¤zÀÄÝ FUÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ
vÀqÀªÁV ªÀÄÄgÀUÉÆÃqÀ oÁuÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ, ªÀiÁgÀÄw, CgÀA¨sÁ«, EªÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É zÀÆgÀÄ
PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÄÀ PÉÊPÉƼÀî®Ä «£ÀAw.
¢: 11/09/2023 vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,
¸ÀܼÀ: ªÀÄÄgÀUÉÆÃqÀ ¸À»/-
(Emphasis added)
8. The complainant in the complaint narrates that she
became friend with the present petitioner, two and a half years
before the date of registration of the complaint and the sexual
acts between the two went on for close to two and a half years.
When the petitioner wanted to get married to someone else, the
offence has sprung alleging that the petitioner has indulged in
the acts of repeated rape for over two and a half years, which is
punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. It is thus the crime
comes to be registered in Crime No.272/2023.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14956
HC-KAR
9. The police after investigation have filed a charge
sheet. The matter is now pending, after committal in S.C.
No.15/2024. The charge sheet is filed for two offences, one
under Section 376(2)(n) and the other under Section 506 of the
IPC. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in a plethora of
judgments has quashed criminal proceedings involving
consensual sexual acts. I deemed it appropriate to quote the
latest judgment of the Apex Court in AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL
v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER1, wherein the
Apex Court observes as follows:
"8. Having heard both sides in this case and after
carefully considering the material on record, the following
attributes come to the fore:
(a) Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as a true and
correct depiction of circumstances, it does not appear
from the record that the consent of the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 was obtained against
her will and merely on an assurance to marry. The
Appellant and the Complainant/Respondent no. 2
were acquainted since 08.06.2022, and she herself
admits that they interacted frequently and fell in
love. The Complainant/Respondent no. 2 engaged in
a physical relationship alleging that the Appellant
had done so without her consent, however she not
only sustained her relationship for over 12 months,
but continued to visit him in lodges on two separate
occasions. The narrative of the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 does not corroborate
with her conduct.
2025 SCC Online SC 1230
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14956
HC-KAR
(b) The consent of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as
defined under section 90 IPC also cannot be said to
have been obtained under a misconception of fact.
There is no material to substantiate "inducement or
misrepresentation" on the part of the Appellant to
secure consent for sexual relations without having
any intention of fulfilling said promise. Investigation
has also revealed that the Khulanama, was executed on
29.12.2022 which the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 had
obtained from her ex-husband. During this time, the
parties were already in a relationship and the alleged
incident had already taken place. It is inconceivable that
the Complainant had engaged in a physical
relationship with the Appellant, on the assurance of
marriage, while she was already married to someone
else. Even otherwise, such promise to begin with
was illegal and unenforceable qua the Appellant.
(c) There is no evidence of coercion or threat of injury to
the Complainant/Respondent no. 2, to attract an
offence under section 506 IPC. It is improbable that
there was any threat caused to the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 by the Appellant when all
along the relationship was cordial, and it was only when
the Appellant graduated and left for his hometown to
Ahmednagar, the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 became
agitated. We also cannot ignore the conduct of the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 in visiting the native village
of the Appellant without any intimation, which is also
unacceptable and reflects the agitated and unnerved state
of mind of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2. For the
same reason, the criminal prosecution against the
Appellant herein is probably with an underlying motive and
disgruntled state of mind.
(d) There is also no reasonable possibility that the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 or any woman being
married before and having a child of four years, would
continue to be deceived by the Appellant or maintain a
prolonged association or physical relationship with an
individual who has sexually assaulted and exploited her.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14956
HC-KAR
9. In our considered view, this is also not a case
where there was a false promise to marry to begin with.
A consensual relationship turning sour or partners
becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking
criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only
burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an
individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court
has time and again warned against the misuse of the
provisions, and has termed it a folly[Naim Ahmed v.
State (NCT) of Delhi 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89] to treat
each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and
prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC.
10. As demonstrated hereinabove, the ingredients
of the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC are
not established. The present case squarely falls under
categories enumerated in Para 102(5) & 102(7) as identified by
this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) for the
exercise of powers u/s 482 CrPC by the High Court so as to
prevent the abuse of process of law. Para 102 reads as under:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we have given the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14956
HC-KAR
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
11. Taking into consideration that the Appellant is just 25
years of age, and has a lifetime ahead of him, it would be in
the interest of justice that he does not suffer an impending trial
and, therefore, the proceedings emanating from C.R. No.
490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 are quashed at this stage itself.
12. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed and the
Impugned Order dt. 28.06.2024 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 is set
aside. Accordingly, C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023
registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara and
proceedings emanating therefrom in RCC no. 378/2023
pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad are
quashed, and Appellant is discharged. Bail bonds, if any, also
stand cancelled."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. In the light of the issue standing completely covered
by the aforequoted judgment of the Apex Court, I deemed it
appropriate, not to permit further proceedings to continue
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14956
HC-KAR
against the petitioner and obliterate the proceedings in S.C.
No.15/2024, failing which, it would become an abuse of the
process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings in Crime No.272/2023 registered
by the Muragod Police Station pending in S.C.
No.15/2024 before the learned VIII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Belgavi, are quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP & KMV / CT-ASC
