1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF MARCH, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.192/2018
Between:
Chandregowda. T,
S/o Late Nagareddappa. T,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ-Sub Inspector of Excise,
Previously R/at 6th Cross,
GKW Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru City,
Now R/at Upparahalli-583 122.
Shiraguppa Taluka,
Ballari District.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. J.S. Halashetti, Advocate)
And

State of Karnataka,
R/by Vijayanagara Police Station,
Now R/by State Public Prosecutor.
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560 001.
…Respondent
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP)

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 R/w 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the
order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the LIII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C
2

No.1225/2016 in so far as deciding to frame charge for
offences p/u/s 376 and 417 of IPC and allow the
application filed by the petitioner U/s 227 of Cr. P.C for
discharge, which are marked as Annexure-E C
respectively and etc.,

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
Admission this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

Though the matter is listed for admission, it is

taken up for final disposal.

2. This is the petition filed by the petitioner

under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C challenging

the illegality and correctness of the order passed by the

court below on the application filed by him under

Section 227 of Cr.P.C seeking to discharge him from the

proceedings.

3. The court below after considering the

application filed seeking to discharge the petitioner from

the proceedings, partly allowed the application and held

that so far as the alleged offence under Sections 376
3

and 417 of IPC is concerned, there is a prima facie case

as against the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and also the learned HCGP

for the respondent-state.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that false allegations are made in the complaint that the

petitioner made a false promise to the complainant that

he will marry her and had sexual intercourse with her.

The learned counsel submitted that he never made such

false promise and never had sexual intercourse with the

complainant. It is also the submission made by the

learned counsel that even if there is sexual intercourse

between the petitioner and the complainant, but the

material goes to show that it was consensual in nature.

The learned counsel further made the submission

referring to the statement recorded under Section 164 of
4

Cr.P.C before JMFC Court, which clearly goes to show

that petitioner-accused not at all committed any of the

alleged offence and there is a false implication. Hence,

the learned counsel submitted that this aspect is not

taken into consideration by the court below while

appreciating the application filed for discharge from the

proceedings. The counsel further submitted that there is

no prima facie material to attract the alleged offences

under Section 376 and 417 of IPC. The proceedings in

the matter is a futile exercise and no purpose will be

served. Hence, the learned counsel submitted to allow

the petition and also to allow the application filed under

Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by setting aside the order of the

trial Court and discharge the revision petitioner-

accused from the proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP made the

submission that prosecutrix herself is the complainant

in the case. He refers the contents of the complaint and
5

made the submission that there are clear allegations in

the complaint that the petitioner herein by making a

false promise that he will marry her, had sexual

intercourse with her. Hence, the learned HCGP made

submission that the allegation made by the

complainant-prosecutrix is a matter of trial. Referring

the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, the

learned HCGP made the submission that there may be

some deviation in the said statement. He submitted

that when there is a material from the complaint

averments itself that there is a forcible sexual

intercourse on her on the false promise that he is going

to marry her, it is a matter of trial and it is not the case

for discharge to consider. Hence, learned HCGP

submitted that there is no merit in the revision petition,

the same is to be rejected.

7. I have perused the grounds urged in the

revision petition, complaint averments and also the
6

statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, copy of

which is produced and also the other documents

produced by the learned counsel i.e., application filed

under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and objection statement

filed, etc.

8. I have also perused the order of the Court

below on the application filed under Section 227 of

Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the petitioner from the

proceedings. Looking to the materials placed on record

and the complaint filed by the prosecutrix, there is an

allegation that by making promise to marry her, the

petitioner herein committed sexual intercourse with her.

9. I have perused the statement of the

prosecutrix, copy of which is produced and in this

statement so far as sexual intercourse is concerned

there is no specific averment, but at the end of the

statement it is submitted by the prosecutrix herein that

the petitioner has not assaulted or abused her by filthy
7

words. He has not at all told her that he is going to

commit her murder. Therefore, the statement even if

looked into there is no specific statement of the

prosecutrix before the JMFC Court that he has not at all

committed sexual intercourse with her. Looking into

these materials and also the allegations made in the

complaint that there is sexual intercourse by making

false promise, at this stage, produced the prima facie

material that even if there is a consent by the victim to

have sexual intercourse, it cannot be said to be on free

volition and free consent of the victim and it is under

the promise made by the petitioner to the victim that he

is going to marry her.

Hence, I do not find any illegality in the order

passed by the trial judge on the application. It is a

matter of trial. Hence, the petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE
UN