SRI KIRAN KUMAR @ KIRAN KUMAR A N vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57769
WP No. 12393 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010276402022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION No.12393 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI KIRAN KUMAR @ KIRAN KUMAR A N
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O ASHOK KUMAR,
R/AT FLAT NO.D-1/D-2,
SRUSHTI APARTMENT,
KENGERI-UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
SRINIVASAPURA,
BANGALORE-560 060
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C V SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KENGERI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE-560060,
REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001
2.
VIDYA SAMPATH
D/O SAMPATH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
NO.A-6, SRUSTHI APARTMENTS,
SRINIVASAPURA,
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
KENGERI,
Digitally
signed by R
MANJUNATHA
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57769
WP No. 12393 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010276402022
BANGALORE – 560 060.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.WAHEEDA.M.M, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR R1;
R2 –SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.675/2022 ON THE FILE OF
THE LIIIRD ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE (CCH-54) ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.390/2021
REGISTERED BY R1 POLICE STATION AGAINST THE
PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376
AND 420 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, PRODUCED VIDE
ANENXURE-A, B AND C FIR IN CRIME .390/21 DATED 28.10.21
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri C.V.Srinivasa, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Smt.Waheeda M.M. learned High Court Government
Pleader.
2. Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with
the following prayer:
“Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the entire
proceedings in S.C.No.675/2022 on the file of the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57769
WP No. 12393 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010276402022
Hon’ble LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore (CCH-54) arising out of Crime
No.390/2021 registered by respondent No.1 Police
Station against the petitioner for offences punishable
under Sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code
produced vide Annexure-A, FIR in Crime No.390/21
dated 28.10.2021 as Annexure-B charge sheet
produced in S.C.No.675/2022 Annexure-C in the
ends of justice.”
3. Affidavits filed by the Investigation Officers who are
present before the Court are placed on record.
4. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.390/2021 registered
by Kengeri Police Station, Kengeri Gate Sub Division, Bengaluru
City. Petitioner, aged about 46 years as on the date of petition
had consensual sexual relationship with the second respondent.
It is alleged by the respondent No.2 that there was a promise
to marry her by the petitioner herein. When there was a
breach, she repeatedly requested the petitioner to marry her.
But all such requests were turned down.
5. Therefore, she lodged the complaint initially for the
offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57769
WP No. 12393 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010276402022
6. Investigation Agency, after registering the case in Crime
No.390/2021, for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, based on the alleged further statement of the
complainant, made a request to the Magistrate to incorporate
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Learned Trial Magistrate granted permission to invoke
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on 30.10.2021.
8. But material on record would go to show that, a notice
came to be issued to the petitioner by the Investigation Agency
on 29.10.2021 itself mentioning the offence under Section 420
as well as Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. With regard to such discrepancy, this Court directed the
Investigation Officers to be present. Both of them are present
before the Court and they have tendered their apology in
mentioning the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code in the notice issued to petitioner even before the Trial
Magistrate could permit them to invoke the said offence.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57769
WP No. 12393 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010276402022
10. Later on, based on the material collected by the
Investigation Agency, charge sheet is also filed for the
aforesaid offences.
11. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance and committed
the matter to the Sessions Court and the case is now pending
in S.C No.675/2022.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. C.V.Srinivasa,
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, would contend
that petitioner was a married person, as on the date when the
first incident took place. The second respondent was also a
married women. Therefore, question of promise to marry itself
was not arise between the parties.
13. He would further contend that it is a case of pure
extramarital relationship for both the petitioner as well as the
second respondent which has been given the criminal colour.
14. Sri Srinivasa would invite the attention of this Court to
the correspondence that has taken place between the second
respondent and the petitioner through email, whereunder, it is
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57769
WP No. 12393 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010276402022
the second respondent who was interested in having the sexual
relationship with the petitioner and she has volunteered to have
such relationship.
15. He would also invite the attention of the Court that it is
the second respondent who booked the hotel rooms for their
relationship. Therefore, there was no element of force and it is
a case of pure sexual satisfaction between two major persons
which has been given a colour of rape by the Investigation
Agency by conducting an investigation in a perfunctory manner
and with ill motivation.
16. He would further contend that when the petitioner as well
as the second respondent were both married, when the first
physical relationship took place between the petitioner and the
second respondent, the question of breach of promise to marry
itself would not arise. Said aspect of the matter is intentionally
suppressed by the Investigation Agency in filing the false
charge sheet. Therefore, sought for quashing of the pending
criminal proceedings.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57769
WP No. 12393 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010276402022
17. Per contra , Smt. Waheeda, learned High Court
Government Pleader would contend that after the investigation
has been completed, opinion has been obtained from the
Director of Prosecution. Later on, charge sheet came to be
filed. As such, there is no fault which can be pointed out
towards the Investigation Agency and thus sought for dismissal
of the writ petition.
18. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
19. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly
when the incident took place petitioner was aged 46 years and
already a married person.
20. Second respondent as per the complaint, was aged about
31 years and it is now contended on behalf of the prosecution
that she is a divorcee.
21. Assuming that she is a divorcee, there is no material on
record to establish that there was a promise to marry or initial
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57769
WP No. 12393 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010276402022
deceitful intent on the part of the petitioner so as to attract the
offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
22. Taking note of the fact that the material available on
record would indicate that it is the second respondent who
volunteered to have sex with the petitioner by sending
repeated e-mails and booked the hotel rooms by herself, at no
stretch of imagination, it can be construed that it is a rape.
There is no material to establish that the sexual relationship
between the petitioner and second respondent is a ‘rape’ as is
defined under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
23. The Investigation Officer owe an onerous responsibility of
investigating the matter truly and arrive at the proper
conclusion in respect of a complaint. Investigation Officer is
required to collect the material in a true manner so as to
proceed against a particular person pursuant to the complaint.
24. In the case on hand, for the reasons best known to the
Investigation Officers, they did not consider the e-mail
exchange that has taken place between the second respondent
and the petitioner. If the same had been taken into
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57769
WP No. 12393 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010276402022
consideration, there would not have been a charge sheet at all,
that too for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code.
25. Complaint averments did not disclose the offence of rape
at the first instance. The alleged further statement said to
have been recorded by the Investigation Officer is the basis to
invoke Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code which has been
mechanically allowed by the learned Trial Magistrate.
26. Further, statement the statement of the second
respondent under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure could not be the basis for filing a charge sheet under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, more so, when material
is available on record to establish that it was second
respondent used to book the hotel rooms voluntarily and invite
the petitioner to have sexual relationship repeatedly through e-
mail.
27. All these aspects of the matter are totally ignored by the
Investigation Agency. It is not only perfunctory but also ill-
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57769
WP No. 12393 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010276402022
motivated, with an intention to somehow hook in the present
petitioner for the offence which did not occur at all.
28. Learned Trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the
Sessions Court have not bestowed their attention to these
aspects of the matter.
29. Be it what it may, since both petitioner and second
respondent were married persons at the time of the first
relationship itself, there could not be any promise to marry at
all.
30. Therefore, there is no question of intention of deceit at
the inception whereby breach of promise would attract an
offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
31. View of this Court is fortified by the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani
vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in 2026 SCC
Online SC 1818 .
32. Consequently, the following:
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57769
WP No. 12393 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010276402022
ORDER
(i) Petition allowed .
(ii) Pending proceedings in Crime No.390/2021
registered by Kengeri Police Station, Kengeri
Gate Sub Division, Bengaluru City, is hereby
quashed.
(iii) In view of the disposal of the petition,
pending applications if any stand consigned to
record.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
CT:VRR