[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669
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.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1669
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
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
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
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
