PRAVEEN S/O GOVINDARAJULU GUNTAKALLU vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16114
CRL.P No. 101406 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020081662023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101406 OF 2023
[482(Cr.P.C)/528(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN
S/O GOVINDARAJULU GUNTAKALLU,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
RESIDING OF: 1ST CROSS,
AMBEDKAR NAGAR, MANTUR ROAD,
TALUK: HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BENDIGERI POLICE STATION,
SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, HUBBALLI,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16114
CRL.P No. 101406 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020081662023
2. SMT. LALITHA
D/O SATHYANAND DAMMU,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NURSE,
RESIDING OF: H.NO.717/A,
VINOBA NAGAR, OLD RAILWAY QUARTERS,
GADAG ROAD, TALUK: HUBBALLI,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD -580 030.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP, FOR R1;
SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SESSIONS CASE NO.5027 OF 2022
ON THE FILE OF THE VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 342, 417, 376(n) AND 506 READ
WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, IN SO FAR
IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED NO.1, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16114
CRL.P No. 101406 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020081662023
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri G. I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the
petitioner-accused No.1, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State, and
Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner-accused No.1 has filed this petition under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to
quash the entire proceedings in Sessions Case No.5027 of 2022, in
connection with Crime No.07/2021 of Bendigeri police station,
pending on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dharwad, Sitting at Hubballi, for the offences punishable under
Sections 342, 417, 376(n) and 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the de facto
complainant lodged a complaint alleging that she came into contact
with the petitioner in the year 2015. The petitioner used to visit the
house of one Pratap Tagargunti, situated in the vicinity of the
complainant's house. During the said period, the petitioner and the
de facto complainant came into contact with each other and
developed a relationship. It is alleged that they fell in love and
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16114
CRL.P No. 101406 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020081662023
used to move around together. Thereafter, on the promise of
marriage, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the de facto
complainant without her consent and subsequently refused to
marry her. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged the complaint,
which resulted in registration of the First Information Report and
commencement of investigation. Upon completion of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet. The
case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
4. Taking exception to filing of the charge-sheet, the
petitioner has filed this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 has
vehemently contended that there was a consensual relationship
and love affair between the petitioner and the de facto
complainant. They had been moving around together since 2015,
whereas the complaint came to be lodged only in the year 2021.
Thus, there is considerable delay in lodging the complaint, which
has not been satisfactorily explained by the de facto complainant.
He further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated
in the case and that there is no material on record connecting him
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16114
CRL.P No. 101406 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020081662023
with the alleged offences. He further contended that the charge-
sheet material does not disclose the commission of the alleged
offences by the petitioner. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the
learned trial Court and continuation of the proceedings are without
any legal basis. On these grounds, he sought to allow the petition.
6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied on the following decisions:
i. Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in
(2013) 9 SCC 293, and
ii. Abdul Razak B.U. and Others v. Union Of India in
Criminal Petition No.8308 of 2025 decided on
29.04.2026.
7. Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2- de facto complainant vehemently
opposed the petition. They contended that the material collected
during the investigation and forming part of the charge-sheet
clearly discloses the commission of the alleged offences by the
petitioner. Whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated or not
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16114
CRL.P No. 101406 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020081662023
is a matter which can be considered only after a full-fledged trial.
They further contended that the present petition was initially filed
at the stage when the trial Court had taken cognizance of the
offences and issued process. However, during the pendency of the
present proceedings, the learned trial Court has framed charges
against the petitioner and the matter is now set down for trial.
Therefore, in view of the subsequent development of framing of
charges, the petitioner cannot seek quashing of the proceedings
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
particularly when no exceptional circumstances are made out.
Accordingly, they sought dismissal of the petition.
8. Perused the material available on record. The alleged
offences took place between 2015 and 2021. The complaint was
lodged on 10.01.2021. As per the contents of the charge-sheet, the
petitioner developed intimacy with the de facto complainant and
had sexual intercourse on several occasions on a promise of
marriage, and later, he has refused to marry her.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
decision in Prashant Bharti's case, cited supra, wherein the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16114
CRL.P No. 101406 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020081662023
victim herself had approached the Court seeking quashing of the
complaint lodged by her. In the said case, considering the facts and
circumstances therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the
proceedings against the accused. Therefore, he contends that the
principle laid down in the said decision is applicable to the facts of
the present case.
10. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated
the guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to stop vexatious litigation
when the uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence or
when the continuation of the trial is an abuse of the process of law.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Razak B.U. and
Others v. Union Of India in Criminal Petition No.8308 of
2025 decided on 29.04.2026, wherein at paragraph No.15, it
has held as under:
"
15. As can be seen from the aforesaid judgment, there is
no absolute or universal bar for this Court to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the
Constitution of India after framing of charges by the trial
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16114
CRL.P No. 101406 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020081662023
court; as stated supra, in the absence of any material to
even remotely connect the petitioners to the alleged
offences, especially when no narcotic substance was
recovered from the petitioners who were traveling
completely independently and separately at a far away
distance when accused Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended and
the very incrimination of the petitioners as accused 6 to 8
was based on the sole confessional statements of the co-
accused Nos.1 to 4 which are neither admissible nor
permissible in law, in the peculiar / special / unique / rare
facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, which
indicates existence of exceptional circumstances and
formidable compulsions based on unimpeachable material
on record, the judgment of the Apex Court in Minakshi
Bala’s case supra , cannot be relied upon by the
respondents in support of their claim."
12. A perusal of the aforesaid finding makes it clear that the
High Court is not denuded of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, merely because charges
have been framed by the trial Court. The jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is, therefore, not
completely barred upon framing of charges. However, the exercise
of such jurisdiction would depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case and the existence of exceptional or compelling
circumstances warranting interference.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16114
CRL.P No. 101406 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020081662023
13. Further, Criminal Petition No.101394 of 2023, preferred
by accused Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the very same crime number,
has already been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
by order dated 14.01.2026. Hence, the said order does not
advance the case of the petitioner nor does it come to his aid.
14. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that, in
the present petition, the petitioner-accused No.1 has essentially
disputed the factual allegations and sought an appreciation of the
material on record. Whether the petitioner has committed the
alleged offences or not is a matter which requires adjudication on
the basis of evidence and, therefore, has to be decided by the trial
Court after conducting a full-fledged trial. At this stage, there is
prima-facie material on record indicating the involvement of the
petitioner in the alleged offences.
15. Further, as per the order-sheet maintained by the trial
Court, the charges have already been framed against the petitioner
and the matter has been set down for trial. This factual aspect is
not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Framing of
charges by the trial Court, after consideration of the charge-sheet
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16114
CRL.P No. 101406 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020081662023
material, indicates that the trial Court has found sufficient ground
to proceed against the petitioner and at this stage, this Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of the
evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact.
16. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that, once charges have been framed and the
matter has proceeded to trial, the High Court ought to exercise
greater caution and should ordinarily be reluctant to interfere with
the trial proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, unless
compelling or exceptional circumstances are demonstrated
warranting such interference.
17. Having regard to the fact that charges have already been
framed and the matter is set down for trial, and in the absence of
any exceptional or compelling circumstance warranting
interference, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner-accused No.1 has not made out any ground for quashing
the proceedings. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16114
CRL.P No. 101406 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020081662023
18. In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
It is made clear that the observations made herein are
confined to the consideration of the present petition and shall not
influence the trial Court while adjudicating the matter on its merits.
The trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the case in accordance
with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK /CT-SK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1