The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a practicing advocate and his relatives for offences including rape and cheating under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Court ruled that the criminal process cannot be employed as an “engine of harassment” or a “weapon of retaliation,” observing that the complainant, who was already in a subsisting relationship with her former husband, could not claim to have been induced into a sexual relationship solely on the promise of marriage.
Case Background
The order was passed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna in Criminal Petition No. 1225 of 2025 and a connected petition. The petitioner (Accused No. 1) is a practicing advocate, while the other petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) are his relatives.
According to the complaint lodged on December 9, 2024, the complainant (Respondent No. 2) alleged that she came into contact with Accused No. 1 in 2020 regarding a legal case. She claimed that their professional acquaintance developed into a personal relationship, leading to physical intimacy on the pretext of marriage. She further alleged that the accused forced her to undergo abortions and later refused to marry her, prompting her to file a complaint for offences punishable under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means), 64(2)(m) (rape), 89, 318(2), 351(2), and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Abhishek Kumar, argued that the allegations were a “concocted story.” He submitted that the complainant was already married twice and was in the habit of trapping men to register crimes against them. The counsel presented documents showing the complainant’s marriage to one Yathish Kumar T.R., an annulment in 2016, and a subsequent kidnapping case regarding a missing child, to contend that the complainant was living with her former husband despite the divorce decree.
Conversely, the Counsel for the Complainant, Sri Akshay R. Huddar, and the Additional State Public Prosecutor, Ms. Asma Kouser, argued that the investigation should be permitted to continue. They contended that the physical relationship was established on the promise of marriage and that the truth would only emerge after a full investigation.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Nagaprasanna closely examined the documentary evidence, which revealed “distinct and telling circumstances” contradicting the complainant’s narrative.
The Court noted that while the complainant’s marriage to Yathish Kumar was annulled on October 22, 2016, a birth certificate produced on record showed that a child was born to them on August 21, 2020—four years after the dissolution of marriage. Furthermore, in a 2023 legal proceeding (Crl. Misc. No. 1467/2023), the complainant had described herself as the “wife of Sri Yathish Kumar.”
The Court observed: “When all these facts, borne out from official records, are considered cumulatively, 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’, when she appears to have been in a subsisting marital relationship or at the very least, in a continuing domestic association.”
Interpretation of Section 69 of BNS
Addressing the invocation of Section 69 of the BNS, which criminalizes sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, the Court clarified the provision’s scope. Justice Nagaprasanna held that the statute cannot be interpreted to allow “retroactive criminalization of consensual relationships upon the mere recital of ‘promise’.”
In a significant observation regarding the legislative intent, the Court stated: “The statute punishes deceit, not disappointment; fraud, not failed affection; and exploitation, not the collapse of relationship.”
The Court held that since the complainant was associated in other relationships and had children, the allegation of sexual intercourse induced solely on a promise of marriage was “inherently implausible and legally unsustainable.”
Reliance on Precedents
The High Court referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court, including:
- Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. The State of Maharashtra: Distinguishing between rape and consensual sex.
- Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh: Holding that a breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise unless the maker had no intention of upholding it at the time of giving it.
- Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi): Ruling that a relationship cannot be clothed with criminality merely because it did not culminate in marriage.
- Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana: Where the Apex Court quashed proceedings after finding the complainant had manipulative tendencies.
Decision
The Court concluded that the complaint bore a “strong imprint of manipulation and of an attempt to convert private discord into public prosecution.” It termed the proceedings as an abuse of the process of law.
Justice Nagaprasanna allowed the criminal petitions and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 789 of 2024 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District.
The Court concluded with a stern remark: “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, eventually resulting in miscarriage of justice.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: XXXX vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr (and connected matter)
- Case No: Criminal Petition No. 1225 of 2025 C/W Criminal Petition No. 2826 of 2025
- Coram: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
