'Unique Problem, Unique Order': Karnataka High Court Stays Rape FIR Against Youth, Orders Him To Pay ₹75,000 Per Month To Victim & Child

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (April 24) stayed an FIR against the son of a BJP leader from Puttur, accused of repeatedly raping a classmate on false promise of marriage who later became pregnant and had a child, subject to payment of Rs. 75,000 per month to the victim till disposal of his quashing petition.

The court was hearing the 22-year-old's plea seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against him under BNS Section 64(2) (m) (whoever commits rape repeatedly on the same woman) and Section 69 (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.) of the BNS when he allegedly went back on his promise to marry. 

Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order noted the submissions of senior advocate PP Hegde appearing for petitioner that these acts were "consensual" between parties who were in love and it would not be offence under Sections 64(m) or 69 BNS.

Meanwhile advocate Francis Xavier appearing for the complainant, submitted that she had now become a mother and a girl who had to see opportunities in life is now seeing a maternal life. He said that mother of the complainant is a house keeping staff and father is daily wage employee and they are today left in the lurch with the child. He further argued petitioner had not once visited the victim or the child who is 10-months old.

The court thereafter in its order dictated:

"In light of aforesaid circumstance if it were to be only a consensual act between the two and consensual acts had not gone to the extent of a baby being born which is now close to 10 months, this court would have stayed the matter in its entirety. But the circumstance is different. The parents of the victim are not in a position to take care of the child. The child is born and mother and child are left in the lurch for the acts of the petitioner. The petitioner may be a student...The circumstances for the present should be stalled only on conditions. There shall be an interim order of stay of further proceedings subject to the condition that the petitioner, by himself or through his parents, pay the victim and the child to take care of the child and the needs of the child Rs 75,000 per month till the disposal of the writ petition..."

The court noted that it was an admitted fact that the petitioner was the biological father and the test had revealed the same. It thus directed that the petitioner to pay the first monthly payment next week itself to the victim and on the same date month on month the amount shall be deposited for the care of the child and the mother. 

"A unique problem, unique order", the single judge bench orally said. 

The court further orally remarked, “…When a child who has to see the future at 20 years, becomes pregnant and gives birth to a baby, you don't know the difficulties that they face. You have killed the girl's future completely. What does she do now? Take care of the child or take care of her future? Just because she comes from a poor family...you can't do this...".

During the hearing, Hegde also submitted that in the case of this nature, there must not be a media trial. He said that the case was of a sensitive nature involving a child and it was his duty to co-operate in that regard.

"But once, media trial goes on...My only prayer is, in a matter of this nature where child is also involved...a media trial should not be there. Whatever your lordship lays down we are bound. He is a student. My endeavour would be a case of this nature should not drag on for long...It is also causing prejudice to us..." he said.

He further said that the petitioner's father also belongs to a political party and that there are "rivals who would use this"; thus a media trial would prejudice the interests of parties. He said that there should be a restrain on media trial, so that parties can sit in a peaceful atmosphere where such prejudice is not there. 

He further said that he bows down that the child should be safeguarded but what was harming was the hype happening continuously in the media, to which the court said that it shall direct the parties to encourage restraint. 

"The counsel for the complainant, Advocate Francis Xavier would undertake that the issue would not be blown out of proportion by approaching the press by the victim and her parents…”, the court dictated in its order. 

As the petitioner's counsel pressed that political parties were sitting in press conferences on the issue with the victim and there were associations who were doing this as well, the court said, "I have told they will encourage restraint. Can I stop the whole world by passing a gag order here? The victims and parents have undertaken...whoever is associated with complainant and parents will not go to the parents". 

"It is made clear that the victim, her parents or her relatives shall encourage restraint by not approaching the media till the matter is decided at the hands of this court," the court added in its order. 

The matter is next listed on June 5. 

Case Title: Krishna J. Rao v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: WP 11843/2026