Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Rape Case Over Alleged Sex On Marriage Promise, Leaves Disputed Facts For Trial

The complainant alleged that she and the petitioner became acquainted in 2015, developed a relationship, and had sexual intercourse on several occasions after the petitioner promised to marry her. She alleged that he later refused to marry her.

A complaint was lodged on 10 January 2021, leading to a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 342, 417, 376(n) and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that the relationship was consensual, the complaint was delayed, and the charge-sheet disclosed no offence.

During the petition, the Sessions Court framed charges and set the case down for trial.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice; framing of charges does not create an absolute bar to its exercise, but the jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously and ordinarily only where exceptional or compelling circumstances warrant intervention.

The Court referred to Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 9 SCC 293, concerning the use of inherent powers where uncontroverted allegations do not disclose an offence or continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

It also considered Abdul Razak B.U. and Others v. Union of India, Criminal Petition No. 8308 of 2025, decided 29 April 2026, for the proposition that jurisdiction may remain available after charges are framed where exceptional circumstances and unimpeachable material justify interference.

The Court further stated that disputed factual questions and detailed appreciation of evidence are not to be determined in a Section 482 petition.

The Court found that the charge-sheet alleged repeated sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage, followed by the petitioner’s refusal to marry, and that there was prima facie material indicating his involvement.

The petitioner’s arguments about consent, delay, and lack of material raised factual matters requiring adjudication at trial, rather than grounds for quashing on the record before the Court.

Although the Court held that framing of charges did not wholly foreclose Section 482 jurisdiction, charges had been framed after consideration of the charge-sheet, and the petitioner showed no exceptional or compelling circumstance warranting interference.

The Court also noted that a co-ordinate Bench had dismissed the petition brought by accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the same crime, though that order did not independently determine the petitioner’s case.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed. The Court directed that its observations not influence the trial Court, which was to proceed in accordance with law.