(Prayer: This criminal petition is filed u/s.528 of BNSS, Praying to quashed the filing of complaint and FIR Principal Civil Judge (SR.DN.) and CJM Court, Uttara Kannada District Karwar in UK Woman P.S. Crime No. 0012/2025 on dated 08.03.2025 for the offence u/s. 376, 376(2)(N), 504, 506, 417, 448, 201 of IPC against the petitioner/accused no.1 by allowing the petition in the interest of Justice and Equity and etc.

This criminal petition is filed u/s.528 of BNSS, praying to quashed the filing of complaint and FIR on the file of Principal Civil Judge (SR.DN) and CJM Court, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar, in UK Woman P.S. Crime No.0012/2025 on dated 08.03.2025 for the offence u/s.376, 376(2)(n), 504, 506, 417, 448, 201 of IPC, against the petitioner No.1 and 2/accused no.2 and 3 by allowing the petition in the interest of justice and equity and etc.)

Oral Order:

1. The Crl.P.No.101524/2025 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)/528 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), praying to quash the proceedings, with the following prayer:

“PRAYER

               WHEREFORE this Hon’ble court pleased to

               a) Kindly quashed the filing of complaint and FIR Hon’ble Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn)& CJM Court, Uttara Kannada District., Karwar in UK Woman P.S Crime No.0012/2025 On dated 08/03/2025 (2)(N),504,506,417,448, 201 of IPC against the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 by allowing the petition in the interest of justice and equity.

               b) Any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be passed.

2. The Crl.P.No.101470/2025 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS seeking to quash the criminal proceedings as per the prayer set out below:

               Wherefore, this Hon’ble Court pleased to;

               a) Kindly quashed the filing of complaint and FIR on the file of Hon’ble Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM Court, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar in UK Women P.S.Crime No.0012/2025 on dated 08.03.2025 for the offence U/S 376, 376(2)(N), 504, 506, 417, 448, 201 of IPC against the petitioner No.1 and 2/accused No.2 and 3 the petition in the interest of justice and equity.

               b) Any other relief deemed fit in the circumstance of the case passed.

3. It is brief case of the prosecution that the victim is orphan and one day went to the mobile repair shop of accused No.1 and thereafter friendship was developed between the victim and accused No.1 and exchanged their respective mobile numbers. Accused No.1 had told the victim that he would marry her and thereafter by making such promise to marry and by luring has ravished the victim on several times for taking several places but thereafter accused started avoiding the victim to marry her, when the victim asked accused No.1 about the marriage, all the accused abused in filthy language and criminally intimidated her. Thus accused No.1 falsely promised to marriage has sexually intercoursed with the victim but had not solemnized the marriage. Thus, upon making false marriage ravished the victim with these allegation offences are foisted and crime has been registered against the accused persons.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/accused submitted that the complaint averments are false and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the petition in Crl.P.No.101524/2025 and the said memo is placed on record. Accordingly, the petition in Crl.P.No.101524/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.

5. So far as the role played by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in criminal petition No.101470/2025 is concerned, the facts are to be considered. Accused No.1 is the son of accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused No.1 had developed close intimacy with respondent No.2/complainant and by making promise of marrying her, had developed a physically intimate relationship. According to the complaint averments, accused No.1 has ravished respondent No.2/complainant several times at different places. Respondent No.2/complainant insisted accused No.1 to marry her, but accused No.1 avoided marrying respondent No.2/complainant went to the house of accused Nos.1 to 3 wherein accused No.2, who is the father of accused No.1 had abused her in filthy language and by stating that he will not solemnize the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2/complainant, accused No.2, who is the father of accused No.1 abused her in filthy language and threw out of the house.

6. Further, on the same day, at about 07:00 pm, both accused Nos.2 and 3 criminally trespassed into the house of respondent No.2/complainant and snatched her mobile handset and destroyed the same; thus, caused disappearance of evidence. Further, it is alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 threatened her life and criminally intimidated. These are the allegations found against accused Nos.2 and 3 in the complaint.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/accused places reliance on the following judgments:

               i. PRAMOD SURYABHAN PAWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ((2019) 9 SCC 608)

               ii. SHRI. AMOGH WADEYAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (Crl.P.No.103902/2022 C/w. Crl.P.No.100291/2022 dated 17.04.2023)

               iii. SAMADHAN S/O. SITARAM MANMOTHE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No.5001/2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6906/2025)

               iv. IRANNA S/O BASAYYA GANACHARI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (Criminal Petition No.102048/2023)

               v. MALLIKARJUN DESAI GOUDAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (Criminal Petition No.4761/2022)

               vi. SHAMBU KHARWAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No.1231/2022 (arising out of SLP (crl) No.7426/2022)

               vii. DR. DHRUVARAM MURALIDHAR SONAR VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.(Criminal Appeal No.1443/2018 dated 22.11.2018)

8. The above said judgments are pertaining to the allegations of consensual sex between male and female. Since accused No.1 has withdrawn the petition; therefore, the above said judgments are not considered at this stage.

9. The allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 are that they have abused respondent No.2/complainant in filthy language and threw her out of the house and further they criminally trespassed into the house of respondent No.2/complainant and threatened her life and snatched her mobile phone and destroyed the mobile handset. These are the clear and prima facie allegations made in the complaint. When there are clear and unambiguous allegations made in the complaint, the truth or otherwise of the said averments can be considered during the course of investigation only. Whether the said accusations made in the complaint are false or not cannot be decided at this stage since this court is not a Trial Court.

10. The principle of law summarized to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS VS. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS (8 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), at Paragraph No.102, which reads thus:

               “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and  sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

               (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

               (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

               (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same don not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

               (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

               (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

               (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, proving efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

               (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with male fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

11. Upon considering the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court above stated, there is sufficient prima facie case made out in the complaint so as to proceed with the investigation. When, upon a bare reading of the complaint, apparently if any prima facie accusations are found, then whether the said accusations are true or not cannot be decided in the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is to be investigated by the Police how the truth and veracity of the occurrence of the incident as alleged in the complaint is to be investigated, then only what the truth would reveal during the course of investigation and at this stage, the Court cannot make any assumption that accused Nos.2 and 3 might not have committed the offences alleged. There must be some material to the satisfaction of the Court that the accusations in the complaint are found to be false, but there is no such material found in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3 that they have not committed the prima facie offences alleged.

12. The occurrence of the incident is the domain for investigation and during the course of investigation only, the truth or otherwise would be revealed, but in absence of any material to show that accused Nos.2 and 3 have not committed the offence alleged, then the proceedings cannot be quashed. Scuttling investigation is not permitted at this stage. Hence, no sufficient grounds are made out to say that the criminal proceedings initiated against accused Nos.2 and 3 are mala fide. Thus, the criminal petition is found to be devoid of merits as none of the parameters are attracted so as to quash the proceedings. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.

14. The criminal petition No.101524/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.