Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1035 (KAR)

Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish v. State of Karnataka

2022-08-08

M.NAGAPRASANNA

body2022
ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.314 of 2020 pending before the 53rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore arising of crime No.301 of 2018 registered for offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri M.G.Siddaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. 3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition are that, on 13-08-2018, the 2nd respondent registers a complaint against the petitioner alleging that she checked into Pride Hotel at Residency Road at about 8.30 p.m. on 12-08-2018 and after check-in and verification, while she was travelling in the lift, meets one Manish and another person from room service. It is the case of the complainant that, as the petitioner was conversating in Hindi, they both exchanged the telephone numbers. The petitioner and respondent No.2 both went to their respective rooms. Later, she goes to have dinner in the meanwhile. The petitioner is claimed to have called her to his room and she goes there, where it is alleged that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had sexual intercourse and respondent No.2 left to her room on the say of the petitioner. When she knocked on the door of the petitioner's room, the petitioner refused to let her in and indulged in heated arguments and also physically assaulted respondent No.2. Based upon this, a complaint comes to be registered in Crime No.301 of 2018 on 13-08-2018, alleging that the petitioner forcibly had sexual intercourse with her as he was a stranger to the complainant and later, after having sexual intercourse assaulted her and abandoned her. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet in the matter and the proceedings are pending in Sessions Case No.314 of 2020. It is the pendency of the proceedings that is called in question in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that nothing had happened on the night of 12-08-2018 and the call record details that are appended to the petition demonstrate that the petitioner was not even present in Bangalore or at the alleged scene of crime on that date as he was away. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that nothing had happened on the night of 12-08-2018 and the call record details that are appended to the petition demonstrate that the petitioner was not even present in Bangalore or at the alleged scene of crime on that date as he was away. Since, he was not present at the place of scene, the story is entirely concocted and therefore, seeks interference at the hands of this Court by quashment of entire proceedings. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, would take this Court to the charge sheet and the statement of witnesses to demonstrate that the alleged incident had in fact happened and it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean as the medical records clearly indicate sexual assault on the complainant and the clinical history would also indicate immediate sexual assault. Therefore, it is a matter of trial, wherein the petitioner has to come out clean. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are, what are found in the complaint registered against the petitioner, who was a Duty Manager in the Pride Hotel, when the complainant checked into the hotel. It is also contended in the complaint, though not in great detail, that the petitioner and the complainant did have sexual intercourse, which the complainant alleges that it was forcibly done upon her. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet in the matter. Column No.17 i.e., summary of the charge sheet reads as follows: In the light of the allegation that the petitioner had forceful intercourse against the complainant, it would require a trial for the petitioner to come out clean. 8. The contention of the petitioner that he was not present at the time of occurrence of the incident on the strength of call record details that he has appended to the petition would require evidence. Mere production of call record details before this Court would not mean and lead to closure of proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the teeth of seriously disputed questions of fact that would require evidence and the alleged offence being under Section 376 of the IPC, I decline to interfere with the proceedings. 9. Mere production of call record details before this Court would not mean and lead to closure of proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the teeth of seriously disputed questions of fact that would require evidence and the alleged offence being under Section 376 of the IPC, I decline to interfere with the proceedings. 9. In the result, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed. I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed, as a consequence.