Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has quashed a police FIR registered against an advocate accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, holding that the criminal process could not be allowed to continue on the complaint as filed. The Court noted that the complainant had approached the advocate for legal assistance in a matter and the two later connected on social media in 2022, following which they became friends and allegedly entered into a physical relationship on an assurance of marriage. Justice Nagaprasanna found the allegations appeared engineered, observing it was difficult to accept a “promise of marriage” narrative when she appeared to be in a “subsisting marital relationship or at the very least, in a continuing domestic association.”

Also Read: Reserved Category Candidate Scoring Higher Than General Category Cut-Off Must Be Placed In Open Post; Supreme Court

The petitioners disputed the allegations, contending that the relationship, if any, was consensual, that the complainant had prior marital relationships and children, and that the FIR was a misuse of criminal law. Documentary records, including birth certificates, prior complaints, and court filings by the complainant, were produced and considered by the Court.

The Court examined the complaint and recorded that “even if it is taken on its face value, they were consensual acts for two years whether on the pretext of marriage or otherwise.” After referring to settled precedent, the Court observed that “there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex” and that “mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise” cannot automatically attract criminal liability.

Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court recorded that “where two adults of their own volition engage in consensual sexual relation over a sustained period, the subsequent refusal of the man to marry the woman, howsoever regrettable, does not ipso facto transmute such intimacy into the offence of rape.”

On the facts of the case, the Court noted that “the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner, at its inception, was plainly that of a client and a counsel” and that subsequent events did not establish deception at inception.

The Court placed significant reliance on documentary material and observed that “the complainant appears to have been in a subsisting marital relationship or at the very least, in a continuing domestic association, and is also mother of two children.” It further recorded that “it becomes difficult to comprehend, far less accept, how the complainant could credibly assert that she consented to sexual relationship on a promise of marriage.”

On the applicability of Section 69 of the BNS, the Court stated that “the statute punishes deceit, not disappointment; fraud, not failed affection; and exploitation, not the collapse of relationship.” It further observed that “on the facts presented, it is difficult to discern where from the offence under Section 69 could even spring.”

Addressing allegations against family members, the Court observed that “criminal law cannot be permitted to be expanded by such facile insinuation.” On the scope of interference at the FIR stage, the Court recorded that “where the proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, inherently improbable or maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance, the High Court should not hold itself back.”

Ultimately, the Court stated that “the complaint is not a genuine criminal grievance, but bears a strong imprint of manipulation and of an attempt to convert private discord into public prosecution.”

Also Read: ‘Remains Only On Paper’: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Re-Look Bangalore–Mysore Expressway Project Implementation

The Court directed that “Criminal Petitions are allowed. The FIR in Crime No.789 of 2024 registered at Byadarahalli Police Station and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru stands quashed. This Court cannot permit the criminal process to be employed as an engine of harassment or a weapon of retaliation and become an abuse of the process of the law.”

The petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate; Sri Punith C., Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Asma Kouser, Additional State Public Prosecutor; Sri Akshay R. Huddar, Advocate

Case Title: XXXX v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case Numbers: Criminal Petition No.1225 of 2025 with Criminal Petition No.2826 of 2025
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna