Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings against a 23-year-old man accused of rape under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case arose from a complaint by a woman he had met through the dating app Bumble. Observing that “a relationship born of mutual volition, even if it founders in disappointment, cannot, save in clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under the criminal law,” the Court held that the interactions between the parties were consensual and that continuing prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The petitioner, a 23-year-old man, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash an FIR registered by the Konanakunte Police Station, Bengaluru, for an offence punishable under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complaint was lodged by a woman who alleged that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her after meeting through the dating application Bumble. The two had interacted on social media platforms, including Instagram, before meeting in person on 11 August 2024. After dining together, they proceeded to an OYO Flagship hotel where physical intimacy occurred. The complainant alleged that she withdrew her consent midway, but the petitioner continued despite her objections. She subsequently experienced discomfort, sought medical examination at Ramaiah Hospital, and filed a complaint on 13 August 2024, leading to the registration of Crime No. 306 of 2024.

Also Read: Hindu Succession Act Doesn’t Apply to Scheduled Tribes: Supreme Court Sets Aside Himachal Pradesh High Court’s Direction on Daughters’ Inheritance in Tribal Areas

The police investigated the complaint, arrested the petitioner, and submitted a charge sheet before the jurisdictional magistrate. The petitioner contended that the physical relationship was consensual and that the complainant’s claims were false. He submitted that the investigating officer had deliberately omitted digital evidence—specifically, chats and photographs exchanged on Instagram—showing mutual consent. The petitioner filed a memo enclosing such records before the Court. The State, represented by the Additional State Public Prosecutor, opposed the plea, arguing that the issue of consent was a matter for trial and that the petitioner’s conduct constituted sexual assault under Section 64 of BNS. The complainant, though served, remained unrepresented. The dispute thus centered on whether the relationship was consensual or amounted to rape under the new penal code.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the case arose “from the complaint dated 13-08-2024,” in which the complainant stated that she had “explicitly informed him not to continue further” but the petitioner “refused to listen” and “continued to engage in sexual intercourse disregarding my express withdrawal of consent.” The Court examined the complaint and the charge sheet, noting that “the entire issue being rooted in the complaint dated 13-08-2024,” and that “the chats are not in good taste nor can be reproduced… It would only indicate that the acts between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/complainant are all consensual.”

Referring to precedents, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191, which drew a distinction between consensual sex and rape, noting that “there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives.” The Court further referred to Tilak Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2016) 4 SCC 140, where it was held that “the evidence as a whole... clearly indicates that the story of the prosecutrix regarding sexual intercourse on false pretext of marrying her is concocted and not believable.”

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Quashes Benami Orders, Directs Initiating Officers to Seek Response from Beneficial Owners

The Bench stated that “a relationship born of mutual volition, even if it founders in disappointment, cannot, save in clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under the criminal law.” It recorded that permitting the prosecution to proceed “would be nothing but a ritualistic procession towards miscarriage of justice and indeed become an abuse of the process of the law.”

Allowing the petition, the Court stated: “For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) FIR in Crime No.306 of 2024 and consequential proceedings in C.C.No.34011 of 2024 pending before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stand quashed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri Athreya C. Shekar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri B.N. Jagadesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor

Case Title: XXX v  State of Karnataka & ANR
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 31144 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna