The High Court of Karnataka has held that the offence of sexual intercourse by deceitful means under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) cannot be attracted against a woman, partially quashing criminal proceedings initiated against the wife of a man accused of falsely promising marriage to another woman. A single-judge bench comprising Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde partly allowed the petition filed by the wife, ruling that while the charge under Section 69 of the BNS stands quashed against her, the police investigation concerning allegations of unauthorized data transfer and intimidation will continue.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (invoked under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking the quashing of an FIR and complaint registered as Crime No. 185/2026 by the Subramanyapura Police Station. The proceedings were registered for offences punishable under Sections 69, 308(2), and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, along with Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, pending before the XXX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
According to the complainant, she developed an acquaintance and relationship with Accused No. 1, the petitioner’s husband, following representations by both the petitioner and Accused No. 1 that their marital relationship was not cordial. The complainant alleged that Accused No. 1 promised to marry her and subsequently engaged in a physical relationship with her.
The complainant further alleged that several photographs and videographs were taken by both Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 (the petitioner) and shared with third parties without her consent and knowledge. It was also alleged that both accused persons attempted to blackmail the complainant.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Accused No. 1—having been married to him for 11 years—and that Accused No. 1 is not a party to the present petition. The counsel argued that Section 69 of the BNS does not apply to the petitioner and that she did not transmit any data to any person.
The counsel further contended that any dispute arising out of the relationship between Accused No. 1 and the complainant could not justify implicating the legally wedded wife. It was also urged that even if images were transmitted from the petitioner’s mobile phone, it was possible that someone had misused the device, and the petitioner could not be prosecuted for such misuse.
Opposing the petition, the High Court Government Pleader argued that the investigation is actively underway. It was submitted that investigating authorities have recovered materials indicating that the petitioner transmitted photographs and videographs of the complainant without her knowledge and consent.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upon considering the submissions and examining the record, the court observed that the petitioner is a woman arrayed as Accused No. 2 and that the offence under Section 69 of the BNS cannot lie against her. The bench held:
“Admittedly, the petitioner is a women and is arrayed as accused No.2 and the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, cannot be attracted against the petitioner and the allegations in the complaint do not indicate any such act by the petitioner.”
Turning to the allegations concerning unauthorized digital distribution, the bench noted that materials on record pointed to allegations of photo transfer without the complainant’s consent and knowledge. On the contention regarding potential phone misuse, the court held:
“The Court is of the view that the contentions raised relating to data transfer require investigation. In case, during the course of investigation if it is found that there is no data transfer by the petitioner or with the consent of the petitioner, then there cannot be any charge sheet for the said offence against the petitioner.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court allowed the petition in part, quashing the complaint and FIR registered against the petitioner solely with respect to the offence under Section 69 of the BNS.
The bench directed that the investigation into the remaining offences must proceed, following which the investigating agency must file an appropriate report based on its findings. The court clarified that its observations do not reflect upon the allegations against Accused No. 1, who was not a party to the proceedings, and kept all other contentions open.
Case Title: Petitioner v. The State of Karnataka and Another
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 10660 of 2026
Bench: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde
Date: September 25, 2026
