Criminal Petition No. 5612/2014. Case: Karthik Gowda Vs State of Karnataka and Ors.. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Petition No. 5612/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K.M. Nataraj, Senior Counsel for S. Rajashekar, Adv. and For Respondents: B.T. Venkatesh, S.P.P. |
| Judges | Budihal R.B., J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 154, 155(2), 156(1), 157, 313, 376, 482; Constitution of India - Articles 136, 226, 227; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120B, 344, 366, 366A, 372, 375, 376, 415, 417, 420, 467, 90; Scheduled Casts and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) |
| Judgement Date | January 29, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Order:
Budihal R.B., J.
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused challenging the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 236/2014 pending on the file of the VIII ACMM Court, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 366 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint dated 27.8.2014 lodged by complainant-respondent No. 2 is that the accused-petitioner herein came in contact with the complainant, on 8.5.2014 at about 8.00 p.m., at Sanjaynagar coffee day and they were introduced each other through one Kushal. Thereafter, the accused was talking to the complainant over phone and shortly, both of them were attracted. Accused was insisting the complainant to marry him and threatened her that, in case she refused, the consequences would be serious. Due to the fear and as there was no other way, the complainant accepted and gave her consent. On 5.6.2014, accused took the complainant by Air to his house at Mangaluru, where he said that after getting permission from his parents, he will marry her in a grand manner and he further insisted her that for the present, he would tie a thread with a piece of turmeric to her neck. As there was no other way, she accepted for the same and because of the insistence and pressure, she got tied a thread with a piece of turmeric to her neck in front of pooja room in the house of the accused at Mangaluru at about 4.00 p.m. On that day, the complainant stayed with the petitioner in his house and during the night, against her will and without her consent, he committed rape on her. Thereafter, the accused and the complainant returned to Bengaluru, where, in the apartment belonging to the accused, he committed rape on her for four times. The complainant and the accused used to meet each other in the country club at Airport road so also they were meeting at Skybar at UB City. The accused further used to introduce the complainant as his wife to his friends.
3. Since one month prior to filing of the complaint, petitioner-accused stopped receiving phone calls of respondent No. 2-complainant and through TV news, the complainant came to know that engagement ceremony of the accused with some other lady has been fixed. In the meanwhile, the friends of the accused were telling the complainant that it would be doubtful of the accused marrying her. In this background, on 10.8.2014, she tried number of times to talk to accused, even then, he had not received the phone calls. Then, she spoken to the mother of the petitioner over phone and told that she wanted to talk to her and asked as to when she should meet her, for which, the mother of the petitioner told that she is in Madikeri and she will be coming to Bengaluru, on the next day. On 11.8.2014, the complainant went to the house of accused at Sanjayanagar and explained to the mother of the accused as to what had happened between the accused and herself. There was no reaction by the mother of the accused. Thereafter, Goutham and Kushal, friends of the accused, were sent to the complainant's place. They threatened her that she should not make any hue and cry alleging that the petitioner has not married her, and again they will come on Thursday to meet her. She was also threatened not to disclose these things before others. On 27th, which was the birth date of the accused, the complainant tried to contact him over phone as she wanted to greet him, but he did not respond at all. On 27.8.2014, through television, complainant came to know about the engagement of the accused. Hence, she gave complaint stating that as the accused and his family members, financially and politically are strong persons, herself and her family members may be given protection and action may be taken against the accused and she may be provided justice in the case. In the complaint, she has given the details at point Nos. 1 to 3 about the alleged rape on her and the accused meeting her at the skybar, country club and turf club, number of times. On 5.6.2014, at 8.30 p.m., in a party, the accused introduced complainant as his wife before his friends-Arvind and Prajwal. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered against the petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 376 and 366 of IPC.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused, learned SPP appearing for respondent No. 1-State and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-complainant.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing of the petitioner - accused during the course of his arguments submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are factually not correct and knowingly, false statement has been made by the complainant. In the complaint, there are corrections, scoring and additions, which are not at all initialled by the complainant. For the allegation in the complaint, that on 5.6.2014, the petitioner took respondent No. 2-complainant to Mangaluru by Air and after taking to his house in Mangaluru, he married her by tying a thread with a piece of turmeric to her neck, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has produced the list containing the passengers name, which are produced at page Nos. 31 and 37 of the petition, which shows that the complainant had not travelled with the petitioner and she alone had travelled. This itself falsify the contention of the complainant that the petitioner took her to Mangaluru by Air, threatened and married her and thereby, committed rape on her. He has also submitted that there is delay of more than 2 1/2 months in lodging the complaint and hence, the conduct of the complainant is to be appreciated by the court. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that if really, the complainant has been ravished by the petitioner, immediately, she could have lodged a complaint without waiting for further period of 2 1/2 months. The complaint averments also show that after committing rape on the complainant-respondent No. 2 at Mangaluru and after coming to Bengaluru, in the house of the petitioner, located in the apartment fallen to his share, he committed rape for four-five times. For this, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that these are all the false allegations made against the petitioner. He submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken to be true for the sake of appreciation of arguments, it will not make out a case under section 376 of IPC. It is also submitted that the complainant filed a suit before the Family Court at Bengaluru seeking declaration that she is to be declared as legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The petitioner contested the same by filing objection statement and ultimately, the said suit has been dismissed by the family court. He submitted that no ingredients of the offence of cheating are made out in the complaint. If at all the case of respondent No. 2-complainant to be accepted, then civil remedy is the proper remedy available to her. For the objection by the other side that that investigation is still going on and it is not the stage to allow the petition and quash the proceedings, in this regard, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is not the correct legal position and if the complaint and FIR do not make out a prima facie case then, the petitioner can maintain the petition and the court can quash the proceedings. The learned Senior counsel lastly made the submission that there is false implication of the petitioner in the case and hence, the same may be allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner may also be quashed.
6. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
1. State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others - 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335
2. Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another - 2011 AIR SCW 2285
3. Shameed Raj M. Nadaf v. State of Karnataka -Crl.P. No. 4066/2014 dated 6.8.2014 (HCK)
4. Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others - 2007 AIR SCW 6679
5. Jose Thettayil v. Station House Officer - a decision dated 1.8.2013 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Crl. M.C. No. 2737/2013.
7. Learned SPP appearing for respondent No. 1-State during the course of his arguments made the submission that investigation is still going on and it is too premature to quash the criminal proceedings. Hence, submitted that the petition is not maintainable at this stage.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-complainant during the course of his arguments made the submission that FIR is not the encyclopedia to contain all the averments. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial