ORDER : 1. Petitioner/accused No. 1 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No. 186 of 2022 pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi arising out of crime registered in FIR No. 92 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short) insofar as the petitioner is concerned including the cognizance taken thereto. 2. The facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows: The 2nd respondent is the complainant, a student in a college next to which digital kiosks of the petitioner is situated. It appears that the complainant in the month of April, 2021 visits kiosks run by the petitioner for the purpose of uploading a form for scholarship. At that point in time mobile number of the complainant is shared and later it is averred in the petition that two get intimated and indulged in sexual intercourse. Long after several instances of such physical relationship, the complainant registers a complaint before the jurisdictional Police on 25-05-2022 alleging offences as afore-quoted. The police conduct investigation, record statements of several witnesses and file a charge sheet against the petitioner and others. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 1. Filing of charge sheet has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Sri Mallesh S. Yadahalli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the very registration of crime is contrary to law as it was a consensual act of having sex between the complainant and the petitioner on several occasions. Though the petitioner was married, the act of having sex was not on account of promise of marriage but it was purely consensual between the complainant and the petitioner. He would further contend that merely because the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the offences under the Act are also laid against the petitioner. He would submit that permitting further proceedings would be contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. He would further contend that merely because the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the offences under the Act are also laid against the petitioner. He would submit that permitting further proceedings would be contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 and Shambu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC Online SC 1032 as also judgments rendered by this Court following afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court. He would seek quashment of entire proceedings. 5. Per-contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently oppose the petition contending that charges against the petitioner are all prima facie met in the investigation so conducted by the Police and a charge sheet is filed. It is not a question of relationship of love between the petitioner and the complainant nor consensual acts spanning over several years for the petitioner to contend that it is consensual and, therefore, offence of rape cannot be laid against the petitioner. He would seek dismissal of the petition contending that it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Though afore-narrated facts are a part of the record, a little elaboration with regard to the allegations would be required to consider the contentions of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent registers a complaint on 25-05-2022 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and similar offences against other accused. For considering the reason for registration of crime, a little flash back is required. The complainant is a student of Sri Siddivinayaka Nursing College studying in 2nd year B.Sc Nursing. She belongs to Scheduled Caste. The petitioner runs a digital kiosks and a photo studio which is adjacent to the College. The complainant walks through digital kiosks of the petitioner day in and day out to go to the College. It appears that the complainant wanted to submit an application online through the system that was in the digital kiosks of the petitioner and, therefore, sought to get a photograph clicked at the photo studio of the petitioner and upload the application. It appears that the complainant wanted to submit an application online through the system that was in the digital kiosks of the petitioner and, therefore, sought to get a photograph clicked at the photo studio of the petitioner and upload the application. The petitioner seeks mobile number of the complainant on the score that OTP would come to the mobile number of the petitioner and, therefore, it would be required for uploading the form. He takes the mobile of the complainant and records the number. He also secures Aadhar card and other documents all on the score that they would be required for online application. He does not upload the application of the complainant. The complainant then visits the petitioner’s studio 2 or 3 times asking him to upload the documents. 8. After about a few days, it appears that the complainant, due to exertion, goes to the photo studio of the petitioner to take some rest. The petitioner is said to have got her tender coconut in a glass after which it is the averment in the complaint that she gets unconscious. She wakes up after about 2-3 hours and sees that her clothes are scrambled and she was lying on a bench. She goes back home on being pacified by the petitioner. She then developed pain in the lower abdomen and vaginal area. She then strongly feels that she has been sexually abused. The complainant calls up the petitioner and asks about the information of what has happened on the said day. What she receives in reply, is a nude picture of hers on her mobile, through whatsapp. It is then the saga of agony of the complainant begins. The averment in the complaint is that the petitioner at every point in time threatened the complainant that he would make the nude pictures public and so threatening takes her to two or three places in a period of six months and has sexual intercourse with her. Whenever the complainant would protest, the petitioner would threaten and use her physically. The averment is that the petitioner also indulged in using the threat by directing the complainant to have sex with his friends as well. Later, the wife of the petitioner calls up the complainant and hurls abuses that the complainant would come to such things as she belongs to Scheduled Caste. The averment is that the petitioner also indulged in using the threat by directing the complainant to have sex with his friends as well. Later, the wife of the petitioner calls up the complainant and hurls abuses that the complainant would come to such things as she belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is the afore-narrated facts that form the fulcrum of the complaint. Since the entire issue is now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows: The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No. 92 of 2022 for the afore-quoted offences. The Police conduct investigation and after recording statements of various people and examination of medical records files a charge sheet against three accused. Accused No. 1 is the petitioner, accused No. 2 is the wife of the petitioner and accused No. 3 is one Smt. Anasuya. Different charges are laid against accused 1, 2 and 3. Insofar as accused No. 1 is concerned, the offences are under Section 376 (2)(n) r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act. Against others the offences are different. Therefore, it is not a case where sweeping offence of Section 376 of the IPC is laid against all the accused. It, therefore, becomes germane to notice the summary of the charge-sheet as obtaining in Column 17. It reads as follows: The summary of the charge sheet is in elaboration of what is found in the complaint supra. The places that the petitioner has taken the complainant on threatening her that her nude photographs would be made public are brought out along with the evidence in the complaint. Since the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste and her modesty is taken away by an act of the petitioner, the offences under the Act are also laid. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that it was a consensual act on the part of the complainant to have indulged in sex with the petitioner and, therefore, it makes out no offence. This submission on the face of it is unacceptable. The consensus that the petitioner seeks to project is not a consent that is offered out of free will by the complainant. The complainant had at no point in time did fall in love or had consensual sex with the petitioner. This submission on the face of it is unacceptable. The consensus that the petitioner seeks to project is not a consent that is offered out of free will by the complainant. The complainant had at no point in time did fall in love or had consensual sex with the petitioner. The first instance happens when the petitioner secures mobile number of the complainant in the garb of securing an OTP. He then uses the innocence of the complainant, molests her at the outset, at the premises she was made unconscious, captures her nude pictures in the mobile phone and sends them to the complainant through whatsapp. Holding those pictures on his phone, goes on threatening the complainant that he would make the nude pictures public on social platform if she would not budge for having sex with him. It is here the complainant left with no choice had to yield to the carnal desires of the petitioner who has unleashed it on the victim not once but many a time. At no point in time, the complainant has on her own volition had sexual intercourse with the petitioner. It is the finding in the charge sheet that at every point in time the victim has been threatened by the petitioner and had sex and even threatened to finish the complainant if she did not yield to the demands of the petitioner. Section 90 of the IPC deals with consent and it reads as follows: “90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception - A consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception. Consent of insane person - if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent. Consent of child - unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.” Even in terms of Section 90 of the IPC, consent is known to be given under fear or misconception, is known to be consent. Consent of child - unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.” Even in terms of Section 90 of the IPC, consent is known to be given under fear or misconception, is known to be consent. The petitioner as observed hereinabove, on every occasion has threatened the complainant that he would publish her nude pictures if she would not yield to the carnal desires of the petitioner. Such acts of threatening the helpless victim and having sexual intercourse can never be termed to be a consensual act. 10. It is un-understandable as to how the judgments that were rendered by the Apex Court as quoted supra which were clearly on consensual acts spanning over several years in a live-in relationship between the accused and the victim in those cases would become applicable to the facts of the case at hand. The act of the petitioner in the case at hand is gross and he has made use of the innocence of the complainant, luring her and using her giving threat or coercion at every point in time. This unless proved to be otherwise, it amounts to ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 376 of the IPC. The learned counsel makes vehement submission to project the petitioner to be innocent prima facie. This projection of innocence is only masquerade which requires a full blown trial for the petitioner prove his innocence. 11. Insofar as offences under the Act are concerned, what is laid against the petitioner is concerning offences punishable under Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act. Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Act reads as follows: “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities: (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe: ...................... (w)(i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient's consent; ...................... (w)(i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient's consent; ...................... Explanation - For the purposes of sub-clause (i), the expression “consent” means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the person by words, gestures, or any form of non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific act: Provided that a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe who does not offer physical resistance to any act of a sexual nature is not by reason only of that fact, is to be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity: Provided further that a woman's sexual history, including with the offender shall not imply consent or mitigate the offence.” Section 3(1)(w)(i) makes it an offence against a person who intentionally touches a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and such act is of sexual nature without her consent. The explanation of ‘consent’ depicts to be unequivocal voluntary agreement. The other offence is Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Act. It reads as follows: “3. (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe: (v-a) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine.” Whoever commits an offence against a person or property of a member belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is said to become open for punishment. Both these offences are prima facie met in the case at hand. The complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste is a matter of record. This is within the knowledge of the petitioner is also a matter of record. The ingredients are thus clearly met albeit, prima facie. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial. The horrendous facts would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner to show any indulgence at this stage of the proceeding. 12. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition would necessarily meet its dismissal and it is accordingly dismissed. 13. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial. The horrendous facts would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner to show any indulgence at this stage of the proceeding. 12. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition would necessarily meet its dismissal and it is accordingly dismissed. 13. Consequently, I.A. No. 1 of 2023 also stands disposed.