The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday pulled up a BJP leader's son, accused of rape on false promise of marriage, for failing to abide by an earlier court order to deposit money for the maintenance of the survivor and her child [Krishna J Rao Vs State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing petitions filed by Krishna J Rao and his parents seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

"Just because the child is from the lower strata of society, are you abandoning the child? We will not permit."

The Court adverted to its earlier order of April 26 by which it had asked Rao to deposit ₹75,000 towards the maintenance of the victim and her 10-month-old child within a week.

Senior Counsel PP Hegde, appearing for the accused, submitted that the interim order had imposed a condition which the accused was unable to comply with since is a student.

The Bench observed that responsibility was being shrugged off due to the social status of the mother and child.

“₹75,000 you are not able to pay? Your father is there. If it is not paid, I will dismiss the petitions. The interim order will be vacated. I will record the reasons. A child is born because of your acts and the father does not take responsibility?"

The counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the victim's bank account details had been communicated to the petitioners' advocate at the available address. However, despite specific communication of the account details, the amount directed by the Court had not been transferred.

It was further submitted that the first instalment had instead been deposited before the court on May 5, but that fact had not been communicated to the complainant.

"You should always be considerate of the problems. If it were consensual acts and kept at that, I would have had no problem. But because of your consensual acts, an innocent life is born. That innocent child is now left in the lurch without any means to survive. How are you washing away your hands? How are you washing away your hands? Or your parents washing away their hands?"

The Court proceeded to orally remark that it will not allow the petitioners to withdraw the plea and that the petitions will be dismissed.

"Both the petitions will definitely stand dismissed. I am not permitting anything to be withdrawn. This is a clear case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to false promise of marriage. There is no doubt about it. I am going to write it. No withdrawal in this," the judge said.

The Court, however, permitted the petitioners to address arguments on merits.

"You make submissions on merits. I am going to answer it on merits. Herculean efforts you can make. That money has been deposited, we will see. I will pass an order while answering it on merits," the judge said while adjourning the case.