The High Court of Karnataka, in a judgment pronounced on October 25, 2025, has quashed criminal proceedings for rape, defined under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, initiated against a 23-year-old man, Mr. Sampras Anthony.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, allowing Writ Petition No. 31144 of 2024, held that permitting the prosecution to continue against the petitioner would be “nothing but a ritualistic procession towards miscarriage of justice and indeed become an abuse of the process of the law,” after observing that chats between the parties indicated the acts were consensual.
Background of the Case
The judgment details that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent (the complainant) first became acquainted through the dating application ‘Bumble’. They subsequently “nurtured their acquaintance for over years through the exchange of images and conversations upon the platform of Instagram.”
On August 11, 2024, the two met in person, partook of a meal at a restaurant, and then proceeded to an OYO Flagship hotel, where “physical intimacy is alleged to have ensued.” The following day, August 12, 2024, the petitioner dropped the complainant back at her apartment.
On August 13, 2024, the complainant, stating she was moved by “certain physical discomfort,” got herself examined at Ramaiah hospital and “comes to know that she is a victim of sexual assault.” She lodged a complaint with the Konanakunte Police Station on the same day.
The police registered an FIR (Crime No. 306 of 2024) for the offence punishable under Section 64 of the BNS. After an investigation, police filed a final report (charge sheet), and the case was pending as C.C.No. 34011 of 2024 before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
In her formal complaint, the complainant alleged that after settling into the hotel room, “Sampras began to seduce me into sexual intercourse, which I instantly withdrew my consent for. I explicitly informed him not to continue further.” The complaint adds, “Despite my repeated objections and clear instructions to not proceed further, Sampras refused to listen. He continued to engage in sexual intercourse disregarding may express withdrawal of consent.”
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, represented by Sri Athreya C. Shekar, “vehemently” contended that the chats and photographs exchanged on Instagram “would clearly demonstrate falsity of the claim.” The counsel argued that the Investigating Officer had “deliberately not made that a part of the charge sheet” and that the acts between the two were “purely consensual.”
The State, represented by Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, “vehemently” refuted these submissions. The prosecution argued that the petitioner “indulged in sexual assault on the complainant” and that “It cannot be termed as a consensual sex.” The State maintained that the question of consent “is a matter of trial” and that the petitioner should “come out clean in a full-blown trial.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice M. Nagaprasanna examined the material on record, including the complaint, the charge sheet, and a memo of documents filed by the petitioner containing chats between the parties.
Regarding the chats, the Court observed: “The chats are not in good taste nor can be reproduced in the course of the order. It would only indicate that the acts between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/complainant are all consensual.”
The Court then referred to several Apex Court judgments. Citing Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the High Court noted, “Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex.” It further quoted the precedent that “The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.”
The judgment also referenced Tilak Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2016), where the court had similarly found an act to be consensual in nature between adults.
Applying these legal principles, Justice Nagaprasanna concluded: “The Apex Court, in the afore-quoted judgments, has etched with clarity, the nuanced distinction between consensual intimacy and the grave allegation of rape.”
The Court held, “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.”
Finding that the continuation of the trial would be an abuse of process, the Court stated, “If the present prosecution were permitted to meander into a trial, it would be nothing but a ritualistic procession towards miscarriage of justice…”
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 528 of the Bharithiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023.
The Court ordered that the FIR in Crime No. 306 of 2024 and the consequential proceedings in C.C.No. 34011 of 2024 pending before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand quashed.
