SIDDARAJU v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI P. NATARAJU, ADV. FOR P1 & P2; PETITION AS AGAINST P3 DISMISSED AS ABATED V/O DATED 03.02.2026) AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHAMARAJANAGARA RURAL POLICE STATION CHAMARAJANAGARA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6165 CRL.RP No. 241 of 2023 HC-KAR

2. SMT. MAMATHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS W/O MAHADEVASWAMY R/A HARAVE VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 128. (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2022 IN S.C.NO.4/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHAMARAJANAGARA ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S.227 OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S.376,323,324,417 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION ON ITS FILE IN ITs ENTIRETY AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. RELATES CRPC FAR TO AS IN THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER

1. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 01.12.2022 passed in SC No.4/2021 by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6165 CRL.RP No. 241 of 2023 HC-KAR

3. Petitioners herein were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376, 323, 324, 417, 498 read with Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.157/2019 registered by Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station, Chamarajanagar, based on the first information dated 03.07.2019 submitted by respondent No.2 herein, who is the alleged victim in the present case. After committal of the case to the jurisdictional Court of Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagar, the Sessions Case in SC No.4/2021 was registered against the petitioners and in the said proceedings, an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer to discharge them of the charge sheeted offences. The said application was opposed by the prosecution by filing objections. The learned Sessions Judge vide the impugned order dated

01.12.2022 had partly allowed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and had discharged them for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 498 read with Section 34 of IPC and had rejected their prayer for discharge for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 324, 417 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is under these circumstances, petitioners are before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6165 CRL.RP No. 241 of 2023 HC-KAR

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that victim lady was already married earlier to one Mahadevaswami of the very same village. Subsequently, she left her husband and started staying with accused No.1 in his house and they lived together for a period of seven months. Mahadevaswami had not filed any police complaint in this regard. The material on record would go to show that prior to the FIR in the present case, respondent No.2 herein had approached the police and submitted a complaint on 03.07.2019 and in the said complaint, no allegations were made against accused Nos.1 and 3, which would attract the charge sheeted offences. Only after accused No.1 refused to marry the victim lady, who was already married, a false complaint has been lodged. He submits that even if the allegations found in the first information are presumed to be prima facie true, the charge sheeted offences cannot be made out against the accused. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in refusing to discharge the petitioners of the charge sheeted offences. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6165 CRL.RP No. 241 of 2023 HC-KAR

5. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the impugned order and submits that Trial Court after perusal of the available material on record has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, marriage of respondent No.2, who is the alleged victim in the present case, was performed with one Mahadevaswami, S/o Maregowda of Harave Village, Chamarajanagara Taluk. First informant and her parents are originally the residents of Chikkatti Village of Gundlupete Taluk. After marriage, the first informant was staying in her husband's house at Harave Village, Chamarajanagara Taluk. During the course of her stay in her husband's house, she got acquainted to accused No.1 Siddaraju and in the first information, it is alleged that accused No.1 proposed to the first informant to marry him and she had refused the said proposal on the ground that she was already married. Allegation against accused No.1 is that subsequently he had once again approached the first informant when she was in her parents' house and by making her believe that he - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6165 CRL.RP No. 241 of 2023 HC-KAR will marry her, he had taken her along with him and kept her in a room. When the first informant asked accused No.1 to marry her, he allegedly informed her that he would marry her only if his parents agree the same. It is under circumstances, first informant allegedly approached accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 allegedly refused to perform marriage of accused No.1 with the first informant and they also allegedly abused and assaulted the victim lady. She has stated that it is under these circumstances, on the morning of 03.07.2019, she had gone to the police station and had complained against the accused. The police had summoned accused No.1 - Siddaraju, but he had not agreed to take her back and marry her. Therefore, for the purpose of threatening the accused persons, she had consumed rat poison and thereafter, accused No.1 had taken her with him to his house at Bengaluru and he allegedly committed sexual assault on her in the said house. It is under these circumstances, FIR was registered against accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.157/2019. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3, for the aforesaid offences. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6165 CRL.RP No. 241 of 2023 HC-KAR

7. The material on record would go to show that prior to the victim lady approaching the police on 03.07.2019, she had filed a complaint on 19.06.2019 before the Women Police Station, Chamarajanagar, alleging that after her marriage, she got acquainted with accused No.1 and they started loving each other. Therefore, she had abandoned her husband and gone with him. Subsequently, Begur Police had summoned her along with accused No.1 and her husband Mahadevawamy and after enquiry, she had gone along with Siddaraju and his parents. Subsequently, parents of Siddaraju had refused to perform her marriage with Siddaraju and therefore, she had once again approached the police on 19.06.2019 and had made a request to summon Mahadevaswamy and Siddaraju and advise them. In the complaint which was submitted by the first informant on

19.06.2019, she has not made any allegation which is now made by her against accused Nos.1 to 3 in her complaint dated

03.07.2019.

8. First informant is a married lady and from her wedlock with Mahadevswamy, the couple have a child aged about 4 years. As per the averments found in the complaint dated - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6165 CRL.RP No. 241 of 2023 HC-KAR

19.06.2019, after giving birth to the child, she had developed relationship with Siddaraju and had gone along with him, abandoning her husband and child. She has stayed with accused No.1 Siddaraju and his family members for a period of seven months. No complaint was lodged by her husband or by her parents in the meanwhile. Only after Siddaraju refused to marry her, the first informant has approached the police. From the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it is very clear that this is a clear case of abuse of process of law and necessary ingredients to attract the charge sheeted offences is prima facie absent in the present case. The Trial Court was therefore, not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. insofar as it relates to the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 324, 417 read with Section 34 of IPC are concerned. Accordingly, the following order:-

9. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.12.2022 passed in SC No.4/2021 by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, is set-aside and the application filed by the petitioners under - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:6165 CRL.RP No. 241 of 2023 HC-KAR Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Petitioners are discharged of the charge sheeted offences. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69