Karnataka High Court
Apporv Katiyar vs State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:38912
CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8115 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. APPORV KATIYAR
S/O DR.SUBEER KATIYAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.G-08, G-BLOCK
DIAMOND DISTRICT APARTMENT
DOMALURU, BANGALORE - 560064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JEEVANBHIMANAGAR POLICE STATION
Digitally signed
BANGALORE CITY-560075.
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (REPRESENTED BY
KARNATAKA
LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 560001)
2. MISS. SHINJANA CHAKRABORTHY
D/O ABHI CHAKRABORTHY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
OCCUPATION- CONTENT DIRECTOR
AT 42 SIGNS, BANGALORE
R/AT NO. B-1502
PURVA WEST END
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:38912
CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025
HC-KAR
KUDLUGATE
BANGALORE CITY - 560068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SAMARTHA .S, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S.528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
PENDING IN S.C.NO.907/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE
LIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, BENGALURU AS
PER ANNEXURE A, B AND C FOR OFFENCE P/US/ 376 OF IPC AS
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings pending in S.C.No.907/2022, as per Annexures-A, B, and C for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Consequently, quash the order of cognizance dated 23.11.2021 passed in C.C.No.57094/2021 and also quash the order dated 02.06.2025 passed in S.C.No.907/2022 as per Annexure-K as illegal and abuse of process of law. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:38912 CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The respondent No.1 registered an FIR in Crime No.221/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 alleging sexual harassment by the petitioner. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were acquainted since the year 2019. It is alleged that on 05.09.2021, the petitioner/accused had invited respondent No.2 to attend his birthday celebration at his residence bearing No.G-08, Diamond District, Domlur. The complainant is stated to have arrived at the said residence around 3:30 p.m. It is further alleged that at about 8:30 p.m., as it began to rain, the complainant went outside, got drenched, and thereafter proceeded to take a shower.
While she entered the restroom and before she could close the door, the petitioner allegedly entered the restroom without her consent and attempted to forcibly kiss her. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:38912 CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025 HC-KAR Despite her repeated resistance, it is alleged that the petitioner persisted in his act.
3. As per the further statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, the complainant has alleged that despite her resistance and repeated pleas asking the petitioner to stop, he forcibly removed his jeans and her undergarments and committed sexual intercourse against her will and consent. The complainant has further stated that immediately thereafter, she gathered her belongings and left the petitioner's residence around 9:00 p.m. without informing anyone. In her further statement, she has also explained that she was in a state of denial and shock and, therefore, could not disclose the incident of sexual assault in her initial complaint. She has stated that upon reaching home, she immediately took a shower as she felt unclean. This, in essence, constitutes the prosecution version of events.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:38912 CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. The complainant on 10.09.2021 at about 09.30 p.m. went to Vani Vilas Hospital with history of sexual assault and she was examined by the doctor and noted some injuries of abrasion and contusion and the concerned hospital authorities collected swabs for chemical analysis.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has raised a primary objection that FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 354 and 354(A) of IPC, which was based on a written complaint filed by the respondent No.2/defacto complainant and she has never alleged the act of sexual intercourse on her. Therefore, he would argue that police had rightly registered the FIR for offences under Sections 354, 354(A) of IPC. He would contend that the allegation of sexual intercourse was proved in her second written statement which was submitted on 11.09.2021 and therefore, he would contend that this is a deliberate improvement made to falsely implicate the petitioner for severe offence of Section 376 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:38912 CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025 HC-KAR of IPC. He would also contend that even otherwise, the act of sexual intercourse was consensual and her silent conduct for five days proves this fact and therefore, no offence of Section 376 is made out.
6. Reiterating that the first complaint at the earliest point of time did not point to any allegation of rape, referring to the FSL report, he would contend that there is no material to proceed under Section 376. Therefore, it is argued vehemently and contended that at the most petitioner can be tried under Sections 354 and 354(A) of IPC.
7. Referring to the two judgments rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another1 and Sanjay Kumar Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another2, he has questioned the validity of the order dated 02.06.2025, wherein learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application filed by the 1 (1979) 3 SCC 4 2 (2022) 15 SCC 720 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:38912 CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner/accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Learned Senior Counsel therefore would point out that in absence of any material, petitioner is liable to be discharged for the offence punishable under Section 376 and the trial at the most can continue for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354(A).
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant has placed heavy reliance on the order passed by the coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.16146/2022. Placing reliance on the said judgment, learned counsel would take this Court through paragraphs 11 and 12 and would contend that the issue as to whether petitioner should be tried for sexual assault is dealt by the coordinate Bench, which is clearly indicated in paras 11 and 12 and this judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench is affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the petitioner under the garb of assailing the discharge order cannot re-litigate the issue as to whether petitioner should be tried for the offence under Section 376 or trial -8- NC: 2025:KHC:38912 CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025 HC-KAR should be restricted to offence punishable under Sections 354 and 354(A).
9. Learned HCGP referring to the materials has supported the charge sheet materials and has vehemently argued contending that there is material to proceed against petitioner under Section 376 and therefore, no indulgence is warranted at this juncture. He would contend that judicial review on an order passed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is very limited and therefore, would submit that the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Having heard learned counsel on record, this Court deems it fit to take cognizance of the FIR. The contents of the FIR are culled out which reads as under:
"I am staying in the above mentioned address along with my Halmate Rittika Haldar, since last year, I work at 42 Signs as the Content Director. I know Apoorv Katiyar since 2019.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:38912 CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025 HC-KAR On 5th of September 2021, he invited me to his birthday celebration. I reached his house around 3.30 PM at Diamond District, G-08, Domblur. It started raining around 8-30 PM and I went outside, I got wet, so I came back inside to the house to take a shower. Before I could close the door, he forcefully came inside without my permission and forcibly tried to kiss me even after I said no and pushed him back multiple times. At that time Apoorv's friends were present outside in the living room.
After I am managed to come out of the bathroom, he came after me and pinned me to the bed and forcefully tried to enter me. I pushed him away and started crying. Then I picked up whatever I would find around me, wore fresh clothes and ran out of the house. I was not in the state of mind talk to anyone, so I left without informing anybody.
At first I was in shock for the first two days even after speacking to my friends, family and therapist. Then finally I decided to lodge an official complaint because I don't want this incident to happen to any other woman, ever."
11. The victim's additional statement is also received by the Investigating Officer. Same also needs to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38912 CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025 HC-KAR be culled out. The relevant unnumbered paragraph is extracted which reads as under:
"On the 5th of September, 2021, he invited me to his birthday at his house which is located in G-08, Diamond District, Domlur. I reached around 3:30 pm at his house. I went outside of the flat around 8:30 pm in the evening, and I was standing in the common area of the same apartment complex. As it started to rain heavily, I got drenched.
Came back inside his apartment again to change my clothes and take a bath. I walked towards his bathroom and before I could lock the door of the bathroom, he forcibly entered the bathroom, and started kissing me. I resisted and told him not to come near me. He physically overpowered me and forced himself onto me. He kept forcing himself on me and I kept pushing him back, I fell on the bathroom floor a couple of times because it was slippery and he was stronger than me. I managed to come out of the bathroom and back into the room where I fell again. He picked me up and started taking off my clothes to which I resisted. I also yelled at him to not do it, but he did not stop. He then pulled down my jeans and my
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38912 CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025 HC-KAR underwear and penetrated me, I pushed him back really hard and started crying. I then picked up whatever I could find and walked out of the house without telling anyone, around 9 pm. I was in a state of denial and shock, I could not register what had happened to me, since I trusted this person and could not believe that it could happen to me. I had also left behind certain valuables in his house as I rushed out.
I came back home and immediately took a shower because I felt dirty. But before I went to sleep. I was in a complete state of shock and denial, I could not forgive him for what he had done, however, I wanted my valuables back and tried to message him in a cordial manner and even wished him happy birthday since I wanted to politely ask for my valuables back which could be misused by him. But I felt humiliated and abused and discontinued the conversation, and with great difficulty, put myself to sleep."
12. The first complaint which is not elaborate, however, discloses that there are some allegations in regard to sexual assault by the petitioner. In the additional written statement, it is further elaborated.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38912 CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025 HC-KAR Therefore, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to examine as to whether the allegations in regard to sexual assault by petitioner/accused is totally missing in the first complaint.
13. On reading both the complaints, this Court is of the opinion that there is some material, while the victim is found to be bit reluctant or hesitant in disclosing the complete details in the first complaint, in the second written complaint submitted to the Investigating Officer which is in continuation of the first complaint, does elaborate. These allegations supported by charge sheet materials has to be substantiated by the prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution.
14. The contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the charge under Section 376 of IPC is wholly unsustainable and therefore, the case ought to be remitted to the learned magistrate for trial of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38912 CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025 HC-KAR IPC cannot be acceded to at this juncture. The material collected during the course of the investigation, particularly the further statement of the victim prima facie discloses specific allegations amounting to sexual intercourse against will and consent of the complainant. Whether such statement inspires confidence and whether the subsequent improvement made in the further statement is the result of deliberation or an afterthought are questions touching upon the credibility and probative value of the evidence which can be tested only during the course of the trial. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to meticulously examine the inconsistencies between the initial and the subsequent statement of the victim but only to assess whether allegations, if taken at face value, disclose commission of cognizable offence.
15. In the present case, the materials placed before the Court, including further statement of the complainant and accompanying medical records prima facie disclose
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38912 CRL.P No. 8115 of 2025 HC-KAR the essential ingredients of offence under Section 376 of IPC. Once materials disclose such allegations, it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance and proceed with trial.
16. For the foregoing reasons, at this preliminary stage, this Court finds no justification to interfere at this juncture. The question whether evidence ultimately substantiates the charge of rape or confines itself to the lesser offence under Sections 354 and 354A of IPC is a matter to be examined by the Court below.
17. The judgments cited by the learned Senior counsel for petitioner is not at all applicable to the present case on hand.
18. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59