Karnataka High Court
Sri. Venkatesh. S vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41885
CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3370 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VENKATESH S.,
S/O LATE SARAVANA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.299
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
NEAR GANGA CABLE
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
BENGALURU CITY
KARNATAKA - 560 003.
2. SMT. NANDINI S.,
W/O SURESH M.,
D/O LATE SARAVANA
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
HARIHAR
R/AT NO. 36, 'E' MAIN ROAD
Location: High
Court of 4TH CROSS, MUNESHWARA BLOCK
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, NEAR GANGA CABLE
Dharwad
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
BENGALURU CITY
KARNATAKA - 560 003.
3. SMT. S.VIJAYA
W/O LATE SARAVANA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.29, 'B' MAIN ROAD
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41885
CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023
HC-KAR
NEAR GANGA CABLE
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
BENGALURU CITY
KARNATAKA - 560 003.
4. SRI SURESH M.,
S/O MURUGESH A.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO. 36, 'E' MAIN ROAD
4TH CROSS MUNESHWARA BLOCK
NEAR GANGA CABLE
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
BENGALURU CITY
KARNATAKA - 560 003.
5. SRI MANJUNATH S.,
S/O LATE SARVANA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO. 17, 4TH 'C' MAIN ROAD
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
NEAR GANGA CABLE
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
BENGALRU CITY
KARNATAKA - 560 003.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SADANAND G.SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION
2ND MAIN ROAD
NEAR STATE BANK OF MYSORE
VYALIKAVAL GUTTAHALLI
BENGALURU
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41885
CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023
HC-KAR
KARNATAKA - 560 003.
2. SMT. XXXX
XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR FILED BY VYALIKAVAL POLICE BENGALURU,
U/S 376(2)(j), 342, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860,
WHICH HAS BEEN REGISTERED IN CR.NO.23/2023 BEFORE
THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE AND GRANT ANY
SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM
FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ABOVE
CASE BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IN TOTO.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.23/2023, pending before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(j), 342, 323, -4- NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for short).
2. Heard Sri Sadanand G. Shastri, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Facts adumbrated, are as follows:
Respondent No.2 is the complainant-wife of the 1st petitioner and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are the family members of petitioner No.1. Both the complainant and respondent No.2 were colleagues in a business venture - Silicon Honda as representatives in the said work place. The two worked together for 4 years, entered into a relationship and later, they got married on 27.01.2023. It is the averment in the petition that as on the marriage day, i.e., on 27.01.2023, it was the complainant's birthday and while celebrating her birthday in the matrimonial house, petitioner No.1 - husband comes across several WhatsApp messages popping up on the mobile phone of the complainant - wife. It is the allegation that the messages were sent by a person, who allegedly had a -5- NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR relationship with the complainant - wife, prior to the marriage.
This results in certain misunderstanding between the husband and wife. Later on, it is alleged that all the petitioners have indulged in assaulting the complainant and have locked her in a room. It is also the allegation that petitioner No.1 - husband had committed rape on the complainant - wife. Thereafter, the wife is said to have left the matrimonial house and decides to reside with her parents from 29.01.2023. On 01.03.2023, a complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent - wife after 32 days of the alleged incidents against all the petitioners. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.23/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(j), 342, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the IPC. The registration of the crime is what drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that petitioner No.1, after about 4 years of relationship, gets married to the complainant-2nd respondent. After marriage, it is noticed that the complainant
- wife was still in a relationship with a man, with whom she -6- NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR had a relationship with, earlier to her marriage. A squabble arose between the couple and the wife is said to have left the matrimonial house and resided with her parents. It is his submission that the complaint narrates about the intoxication of the complainant as on the date of the marriage and even before the Registrar of Marriages, on the allegation that the petitioners had served some drinks containing intoxicating substance. He would take this Court through the photographs of the marriage to indicate that as on the date of the marriage, the complainant was very much normal and conscious and aware of all the incidents that had happened on the date of the marriage. He would contend that the complaint is registered for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(j) of the IPC, alleging rape and other offences of assault under Sections 342, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, while none of the ingredients of the offences are made out in the case at hand.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the alleged incidents are heinous in nature and would submit that the narration in the complaint indicates the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. He submits that on the date of the marriage between the couple, 2nd respondent-complainant was intoxicated by the petitioners and other accused persons and she was not aware as to what has happened on the day of the marriage. The complainant is not even aware of the fact that she had put her signatures in the Register of Marriages. The petitioners have assaulted the complainant and injuries are found all over the body as she was tortured on the false allegation that she has indulged in an extramarital affair. He therefore, vehemently contends that this Court should hold its hands by permitting the trial to continue.
6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would also toe the lines of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant and would submit that the petitioners have to face the trial and come out clean.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR
8. This Court on 07.06.2023 had stayed further proceedings by a detailed order. The interim order is subsisting even as on date.
9. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The allegations against the petitioners are for criminal intimidation, wrongful confinement, rape and other certain offences as quoted hereinabove. Since the entire issue is now triggered from the registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint so registered. It reads as follows:
"¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01/03/2023 gÀÀªÀjUÉ ೕ ಇ£ïì ೆಕ ೈ ಾ ಾವ ೕ ಾ ೆ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ.
EAzÀ XXXX ತಂ ೆ XXXX, 25 ವಷ!.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX "ಾನ#$ೇ, %ಷಯ:- ೈ ಾ ಾವ ನ ಮು(ೇಶ*ರ ಾ+,ನ ಾ- ೆಂಕ.ೇ/. ಎ 12 ಸರವಣ ರವರ %ರುದ6 ದೂರು.
**** -9- NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR (ಾನು 8ೕಲ:ಂಡ %<ಾಸದ + ಸು"ಾರು 5 ವಷ!ಗ=ಂದ ಅಕ: ?@ೕಮA ಸೂBA!, Cಾವ ?@ೕ $ಾಜು 1. ೆ ರವ$ೊಂEFೆ ಾಸ "ಾG ೊಂಡು ಆ .% $ೋI ನ +ರುವ - ಾ2 JೋಂKಾ LೆMೕ ರೂಂ ನ + ಾ Nೆಂಟ %Cಾಗದ + ಸು"ಾರು 4 ವಷ!ಗ=ಂದ ೆಲಸ "ಾG ೊಂGರುPೆQೕ(ೆ. ನಮR ಸ*ಂತ ಊರು ೋಟ"ಾರನಹ=U Fಾ@ಮ, "ಾಳ ರು Jೋಬ=, ಚನXಪಟ ಣ Pಾಲೂ+,, $ಾಮನಗರ Z[ೆ+ ಾ\ರುತQ ೆ. ತಂ ೆ ?@ೕ ?ವ ಂFೇFೌಡ ಇವರು ವ#ವNಾಯ "ಾG ೊಂGರುPಾQ$ೆ. Pಾ^ ?@ೕಮA ಾವ!ತಮR ಇವರು ಗೃ`a ಾ\ರುPಾQ$ೆ. (ಾವb ಒಕ: ಗ ಜ(ಾಂಗ ೆ: Nೇdದವ$ಾ\ರುPೆQೕ ೆ.
(ಾನು ೆಲಸ "ಾಡುವ JೋಂKಾ LೆMೕ ರೂಂನ + ಸೂಪ ೈಜ ಆ\ ೆಲಸ "ಾಡುAQದe ?@ೕ ೆಂಕ.ೇ/ ಎಂಬುವರು ಪdಚಯ ಾ\ರುPಾQ$ೆ. ಇವರು ನ(ೊXಂEFೆ ಬಹಳ ಸಲುFೆ^ಂದ ಕfೇdಯ + ಇರುAQದeರು. ೆಂಕ.ೇ/ ರವdFೆ ನಮR ಅಕ:ನ G ವd ಇ ೇ ವಷ! "ಾg! Aಂಗಳ 30 (ೇ Pಾdೕhನಂದು E(ಾಂಕವನುX ೊi ದುe, G ವd ಆದನಂತರ (ಾನು ನಮR ಸ*ಂತ ಊdFೆ Jೋದ$ೆ ೆಂಗಳ dFೆ ಾಪ ಬರುವbEಲ+ ೆಂದು ºÉýgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ಇದನುX A=ದು JೇFಾದರೂ "ಾG ಇವಳನುX jೕಸEಂದ ಮದು ೆ "ಾG ೊ<ೆ Uೕಣ ೆಂದು kೕl-ದುe mೕನು ಊdFೆ Jೋದ$ೆ ಮPೆQ ಾಪ ೆಂಗಳ dFೆ ಬರದ ಾರಣ E(ಾಂಕ:
27-01-2023 ರಂದು mನX ಹುಟು ಹಬnವನುX ನಮR ಮ(ೆಯ + ಆಚdNೋಣ ೆಂದು Jೇ=, `ಂEನ Eನ ನನFೆ ರoೆ Jಾp ೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದು Jೇ=ದರು. ಅದರಂPೆ (ಾನು ಮ(ೆಯ + ೆಲಸ ೆ: JೋಗುPೆQೕ(ೆಂದು Jೇ= E(ಾಂಕ: 27-01-2023 ರಂದು ೆ=Fೆq 07.20 ಗಂ.ೆFೆ $ಾಜ$ಾoೇಶ*d ನಗರದ 8.ೊ@ೕ m[ಾeಣದ ಬ=^ಂದ ಅವನ ೈpನ + ನನXನುX ಕ$ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಅವನ ಮ(ೆ ಾದ ಾ#[ೇ ಗುಟ ಹ=Uಯ ಮು(ೇಶ*ರ ಾ+,Fೆ ಕ$ೆದು ೊಂಡು Jೋ\ರುPಾQ(ೆ. ಅವರ ಮ(ೆಯ + ಅವರ ಆPÀÌ ನಂEm, ಅಣr ಮಂಜು, ಅಕ:ನ ಗಂಡ ಸು$ೇ/, ಮತುQ Pಾ^ %ಜಯ ಮತುQ ೆಂಕ.ೇ/ನ NೆXೕ`ತ$ಾದ ಉದt, $ಾಜು, ಮ(ೋಹ , ಸು$ೇ/ ರವರ ಅಣr ಪ@ ಾ/ ಎ[ಾ+ರು ಮ(ೆಯ +ರುPಾQ$ೆ.
ನಂತರ ಅವರು ಎಲ+ರೂ Nೇd ನನFೆ ಹುಟು ಹಬn ಆಚdಸುವb ಾ\ Jೇ=ರುPಾQ$ೆ. ಸು"ಾರು ೆಳFೆq 09.00 ಗಂ.ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ + ೆಂಕ.ೇ/ ರವರ ಅಕ: ನಂEm ರವರು ನನFೆ ತಂಪb ಾmೕಯ ಜೂ# ೊi ದುe, ಅದನುX ಕುGದ ನಂತರ ನನFೆ ಪ@uೆ ತvwರುತQ ೆ. ಾವb ೇ dೕAಯ ಪ@uೆ, ಇರುವbEಲ+. ನಂತರ ನನXನುX ೆ=Fೆq ಸು"ಾರು 10.00 ಗಂ.ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ + ಾವb ೋ ೇವNಾxನದ + ನನFೆ -ೕ$ೆ PೊG- ಕ$ೆದು ೊಂಡು Jೋ\ರುPಾQ$ೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದ + ನನFೆ ಸ*ಲw ಪ@uೆ ಬಂEದುe, ಅವರ ಅಕ: ನಂEmಯನುX ೇ= ಾಗ mನX ಹುಟ ಹಬnದ ಸಲು ಾ\ ೇವNಾxನ ೆ: ಬಂEರುವb ಾ\ A=-ರುPಾQ$ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನFೆ ಬಹಳ ಸುNಾQ\ ಇರುವb ಾ\ Jೇ= ಾಗ ಮPೊQ8R ತಂಪb ಾmೕಯವನುX ೊi ರುPಾQ$ೆ. ತದನಂತರ ನನFೆ ಅ + ಏನು ನKೆE ೆ ಎಂದು A=EರುವbEಲ+. ನನFೆ ಪ@uೆ ಬಂ ಾಗ ಾವb ೋ ಕfೇdಯ +ದುe ಾವb ೋ ಾಖ[ೆFೆ ಸ` "ಾಡಲು A=-. ಅದರಂPೆ (ಾನು ಸ`ಯನುX "ಾGರುPೆQೕ(ೆ. ನಂತರ ಅವರ ಮ(ೆFೆ ಕ$ೆದು ೊಂಡು Jೋ ಾಗ ಸಂoೆ ಾ\ದುe, (ಾನು ನಮR
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR ಮ(ೆFೆ JೋಗುPೆQೕ(ೆಂದು ೇ= ಾಗ ೆಂಕ.ೇ/ ರವರ ಅಮRನವರು mೕನು ಎಲೂ+ Jೋಗ ೇಡ ೆಂಕ.ೇ/ oೊPೆ ಮದು ೆ ಾ\ ೆ ಎಂದು Jೇ= ನನX ಬ= ಇದe {ೕ2 ಅನುX ವಂಕ.ೇ/ನು pತುQ ೊಂಡನು. ಅವರ ಅಮR ಮತುQ ಅಕ: ಇಬnರು Nೇd ೊಂಡು ನನFೆ ೈಗ=ಂದ ಹ[ೆ+ "ಾG ಅವರ ಮ(ೆಯ ರೂಂನ + ಬಲವಂತ ಾ\ ಕೂG JಾpರುPಾQ$ೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದ + ನಮR Pಾ^ ಮತುQ ನನX ಅಕ: Cಾವ ರವರುಗಳ| ಹಲ ಾರು ಾd {ೕ2 "ಾGದರು ೊಡ ೆ ಅವರ ಬ= ಇi ೊಂGರುPಾQ$ೆ. ನಮR Pಾ^ {ೕ2 "ಾG ಾಗ d-ೕ} "ಾG ಇ + ನKೆದ %~ಾರವನುX mಮR Pಾ^Fೆ Jೇ=ದಂPೆ ೆದd ೆ Jಾp Pಾನು ಮ(ೆFೆ ಬರುವb ಾ\ A=ಸುವಂPೆ Jೇ=ರುPಾQ$ೆ. ಅದರಂPೆ (ಾನು ನಮR Pಾ^Fೆ (ಾನು ಮ(ೆFೆ ಬರುವb ಾ\ A=-ರುPೆQೕ(ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನX ಬ= ಇದe j ೈ {ೕ2 ಅನುX pತುQ ೊಂಡು ರೂಂನ + ಕೂGJಾಕುPಾQ$ೆ. $ಾA@ ಸು"ಾರು 9.00 ಗಂ.ೆFೆ Jೊ.ೆ ಹ-ವb ಎಂದು ಕೂ\ ೊಂKಾಗ ೆಂಕ.ೇಶನು ನನX ರೂಂFೆ ಬಂದು ಊಟವನುX ೊi ದುe, ಅದನುX Aಂದು ಮPೆQ ಪ@uೆ ತvwರುPೆQೕ(ೆ.
ನಂತರ ಮರು Eನ ಅಂದ$ೆ E(ಾಂಕ 28-01-2023 ರಂದು ೆ=Fೆq 07.00 ಗಂ.ೆFೆ ಎಚ•ರ ಾ ಾಗ ನನX 8ೖ 8ೕ[ೆ ಬ.ೆ ಇರುವbEಲ+. Jಾಗೂ 8ೖ ೈಗಳ| (ೋ ಾ\ರುತQ ೆ. Jಾಗೂ ನನFೆ ಪ@uೆ ಇಲ+ದ ಸಮಯದ + ೆಂಕ.ೇಶನು ನನX ªÉÄÃ[ೆ ಅPಾ#~ಾರ "ಾGರುವbದು ಕಂಡುಬಂEದುe ನನX ಗು ಾQಂಗದ + ತುಂ ಾ (ೋ ಾ\ರುತQ ೆ ನಂತರ ಸದj %~ಾರ ಾ\ ೆಂಕ.ೇಶನ ಬ= ಗ[ಾ.ೆ "ಾG ಾಗ ಅವರ ಮ(ೆಯ +ದe ೆಂಕ.ೇ/ ರವರ Cಾವ ಸು$ೇ/ ಅವರ ಅಣr ಮಂಜು ರವರು ನನFೆ ಅ ಾಚ# ಶಬeಗ=ಂದ ೈEರುPಾQ$ೆ. ಅವರ ಅಕ: ಮತುQ ಅಮR ಅವರು ೈ ಗ=ಂದ JೊKೆEರುPಾQ$ೆ. ೆಂಕ.ೇಶನು ಎ[ಾ+ ಮು\ದು Jೋ\ ೆ mೕನು ಎ +ಗೂ Jೋಗ ೇಡ ಎಂದು ಬಲವಂತ ಾ\ ರೂಂನ + ಕೂGJಾpರುPಾQ(ೆ. ನಮR ಮ(ೆFೆ Jೋಗ ೇ ೆಂದು (ಾನು pರು~ಾG ಕೂFಾG ಾಗ ಸು"ಾರು 11.30 ರ ಸಮಯ ೆ: ೆಂಕ.ೇ/ ಮತುQ ಅವರ ಮ(ೆಯವ$ೆಲ+ರೂ ನನXನುX ನಮR ಅಕ: Cಾವ ರವರ ಮ(ೆFೆ ಕ$ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಆ\ದುe ಆ\ Jೋ\ ೆ ಈFಾಗ[ೇ ಇವdಬndಗೂ ಮದು ೆ "ಾG- dZಸ ಕೂಡ ಆ\ರುತQ ೆ ಎಂದು A=- ಾಗ ನನಗೂ ಮತುQ ನಮR ಮ(ೆ ಾವdಗೂ Fಾಬd ಾ\ರುತQ ೆ. EದನುX ೇ=ದ ನಮR ಮ(ೆಯವರು ನನFೆ ೈದು ಅವರ ಮ(ೆಯ +•ೕ ಇರು ಎಂದು Jೇ=ರುPಾQ$ೆ. ಅ ೇ Eನ (ಾನು ೆಂಕ.ೇ/ ಮತುQ ಅವರ ಮ(ೆಯವರು "ಾGದ ಕೃತ# ೆ: ೕ ಾ ೆಯ + ದೂರು mೕಡುವb ಾ\ Jೇ= ಾಗ ೆಂಕ.ೇಶನು ನನXನು ೊ[ೆ "ಾಡುವb ಾ\ ೆದd-ರುPಾQ(ೆ. ನಂತರ (ಾನು ೆಂಕ.ೇಶmFೆ ಕ$ೆ "ಾG ನKೆEರುವ %~ಾರವನುX ಎಲೂ+ Jೇಳ|ವbEಲ+ ಎಂದು A=-ದ 8ೕ[ೆ ೆಂಕ.ೇ/ ನಮR ಮ(ೆFೆ ಬಂದು ನನXನುX ಅವರ ಮ(ೆFೆ ಸಂoೆ 04.00 ಗಂ.ೆFೆ ಕ$ೆದು ೊಂಡು Jೋ\ರುPಾQ(ೆ. ನಂತರ $ಾA@ ಸಮಯದ + ೆಂಕ.ೇಶನು ನನX ರೂಂFೆ ಬಂದು ನನX ಇ~ೆ‚ಯ %ರುದ6 ಾ\ ಹಲ ಾರು ಾd ನನX 8ೕ[ೆ ಬಲವಂತ ಾ\ ಸಂCೋಗ "ಾGರುPಾQ(ೆ. ಮರುEನವƒ ಕೂಡ ಈ %~ಾರವನುX ಾdFಾದರೂ Jೇ=ದ$ೆ mನXನುX Jಾಗೂ mಮR ಮ(ೆಯವ$ೆಲ+ರನುX ೊ[ೆ "ಾಡುವb ಾ\ ೆದd ೆ JಾpರುPಾQ(ೆ.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR ಆದedಂದ ೆಂಕ.ೇಶನ oೊPೆಯ + ನನFೆ ಮದು ೆ ಾಗಲು ಇಷ %ಲ+Eದeರು ಮತುQ ಬರುವ ಾmೕಯವನುX ಕುG- jೕಸEಂದ ಮದು ೆ "ಾG ೊಂಡು ಅವನ ಮ(ೆಯ + ಕೂG Jಾp ನನX ಇ~ೆ‚Fೆ %ರುದ6 ಾ\ ೈ`ಕ ಸಂCೋಗ "ಾG, ನನFೆ ಅ ಾಚ# ಶಬeಗ=ಂದ ೈದು, ಹ[ೆ+ "ಾG ೆದd ೆ Jಾpರುವ ೆಂಕ.ೇ/, ನಂEm, %ಜಯ, ಸು$ೇ/, ಮಂಜು ರವರ %ರುದ6 ಸೂಕQ ಾನೂನು dೕA ಕ@ಮ ಜರು\ಸ ೇ ೆಂದು ೇ= ೊಳ|UPೆQೕ(ೆ. (ಾನು ಈ %~ಾರ ಾ\ ನನX ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ#$ೊಂEFೆ ಸ"ಾ[ೋಚ(ೆ "ಾG ಈ Eನ ಾ ೆFೆ ಬಂದು ದೂರು mೕಡುAQ ೆeೕ(ೆ.
ವಂದ(ೆಗ<ೆ ಂEFೆ ತಮR %Lಾ*-.
¸À»/-
(XXXX)."
(Emphasis added) The narration in the complaint is that, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were colleagues in the office. Petitioner No.1 was very compassionate with the complainant and when the complainant informed petitioner No.1 that she would leave the place and go back to her native, petitioner No.1 on the pretext of celebrating the birthday of the complainant took the complainant to his house and offered drinks which intoxicated her. It is the narration that petitioner No.1 along with his family members took the complainant to the Office of the Registrar of Marriages and performed their marriage. When the complainant gains consciousness, she was informed that she is married with petitioner No.1. The complaint also narrates the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR allegations of assault, insult and wrongful restraint committed by the petitioners and the act of repeated rape on the complainant by petitioner No.1. There are allegations of threatening the complainant that they would do away the life of the complainant, if she would reveal any of the alleged incidents to anybody else. Petitioner No.1, the husband and his family members are before this Court.
10. The issue now would be, whether on the aforesaid facts, trial should be permitted to continue against the petitioners.
11. The petitioners are alleged for the offences under Sections 376(2)(j), 342, 323, 504, 506 r/w.34 of the IPC. If the offences are to be proved, the ingredients of the offences are to be made out. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the offences alleged against the petitioners.
12. The offence of rape is alleged against the 1st petitioner after the marriage has taken place between the 1st
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR petitioner and the 2nd respondent. It becomes apposite to refer to the second exception to rape under Section 375 of the IPC, which reads as follows:
"375. Rape.--A man is said to commit "rape" if he--
... ... ...
Exception 2.--Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape."
(Emphasis supplied) In the light of the exception quoted hereinabove, the offence of rape cannot be made out against the husband generally, unless grave circumstances are shown to exist. The offence punishable under Section 376(2)(j) of the IPC cannot be an offence that can be alleged against the petitioner in the case at hand. Therefore, the offence under Section 376(2)(j) of the IPC so alleged is unsustainable.
13. What remains is, Sections 342, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Section 340 of the IPC defines the offence of wrongful confinement. For an offence to become punishable under Section 342 of the IPC, ingredients as found in Section 340 of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR the IPC is required to be present to constitute the offence of wrongful confinement punishable under Section 342 of the IPC. Section 340 of the IPC reads as follows:
"Section 340: Wrongful confinement;
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person."
In the light of the fact that none of the ingredients as obtaining under Section 340 of the IPC being present in the case at hand, offence under Section 342 of the IPC cannot be laid against the petitioners, as the narration in the complaint is that, the petitioners had confined the complainant in a room by locking the said room. The Apex Court in the case of BIRKA SHIVA v. STATE OF TELANGANA1 (supra), has held as follows:-
"16. Turning now to the charge under Section 342 IPC, which penalises wrongful confinement, it must be established that the accused voluntarily obstructed the victim in such a manner as to prevent her from proceeding beyond certain circumscribed limits. The testimony of the victim (PW-
3) indicates that she resided with the appellant for nearly two months. Notably, what is absent from the record is any assertion that she was physically restrained, or her movements were restricted. The victim admits that the appellant left daily for work and that she remained alone 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1454
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR at the residence. Finally, it is suggested that the appellant used to put a lock on the main door of the house. But this version appears to be just an afterthought and not correct. For, there is no indication that she attempted to flee, contact neighbours, or otherwise signal her unwillingness to stay in that house. This conduct stands in stark contrast to what one might expect of a person wrongfully confined against his/her volition......."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment holds that the offence of wrongful confinement punishable under Section 342 of the IPC is made out, if it is established that the accused voluntarily obstructed the victim and prevented the victim from proceeding beyond certain circumscribed limits. In the case at hand, the offence of wrongful confinement is loosely laid against the petitioners, as there is no semblance of any attempt made by the 2nd respondent-complainant to escape from the clutches of the petitioners.
14. In respect of other offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, ingredients are found in Sections 503 and 505 of the IPC. Sections 503 and 505 of the IPC read as follows:
"Section 503 :- Criminal intimidation
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation."
Section 505 :- Statements conducing public mischief
1. Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between classes, Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Offence under sub-section (2) committed in place of worship, etc. Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (2) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine." In terms of Sections 503 and 505 of the IPC - criminal intimidation and statements conducing public mischief, the alleged offences cannot be laid. The interpretation of these offences also need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMAD WAJID v. STATE OF U.P.2, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
SECTIONS 503, 504 AND 506 OF THE IPC
24. Chapter XXII of the IPC relates to Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance. Section 503 reads thus:--
"Section 503. Criminal intimidation. --Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to resist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation."
25. Section 504 reads thus:--
"Section 504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
26. Section 506 reads thus:--
"Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. --Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
27. An offence under Section 503 has following essentials:--
1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR
2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is
not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the Section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised selfcontrol or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant.
29. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. ChunnibhaiDayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:--
"To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present."
(Emphasis supplied) In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as afore-quoted, none of the ingredients to become an offence under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, is made out in the complaint. The offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC does not sustain since no medical examination has been conducted after the alleged offences.
15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the judgments of the Apex Court covering the subject issue on all its fours, the unmistakable inference would be the obliteration of the proceedings against the petitioners. There is no warrant to permit continuation of the trial proceedings against the petitioners, as it would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41885 CRL.P No. 3370 of 2023 HC-KAR
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER a. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
b. The impugned Crime No.23/2023, pending before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru, stands quashed, qua the petitioners.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:SS