-
by sayum
26 August 2026 1:49 PM
“A Relationship Born of Mutual Volition, Even If It Founders in Disappointment, Cannot Be Transmuted into a Criminal Offence”— In a judgment that squarely addresses the intersection of modern dating culture and criminal law, the Karnataka High Court quashed a rape prosecution initiated under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—the successor to Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code—holding that a criminal trial founded on belated allegations of non-consent in an otherwise consensual and mutual relationship would constitute an abuse of process.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who ruled that the complainant's allegations did not withstand judicial scrutiny when examined against the factual matrix of the case—particularly the long-standing interaction between the parties through the dating app ‘Bumble’ and Instagram, and the nature of their voluntary meeting that culminated in physical intimacy.
Referring to the complainant’s claim of withdrawal of consent during the act, the Court found that the prosecution appeared to be a “post-facto realignment of personal regret as criminal culpability”, unsupported by any contemporaneous evidence or prompt reporting.
“Where Physical Intimacy Arises Out of Long-Standing Mutual Contact, Belated Claims of Non-Consent Must Be Viewed With Legal Caution” — Court Declares Complaint an Afterthought
The petitioner was accused under Section 64 of the BNS, 2023 (analogous to rape under the IPC) based on a complaint lodged two days after the parties met in person following a year-long virtual engagement. According to the complainant, the parties met through Bumble and later reconnected on Instagram, before meeting on 11.08.2024, when they checked into a hotel and engaged in sexual intercourse. The complainant alleged that although she had initially consented to intimacy, she withdrew consent during the act, which the petitioner allegedly disregarded.
She visited Ramaiah Hospital on 13.08.2024, reportedly due to “stomach pain”, and filed the police complaint the same day. A criminal case under Crime No. 306/2024 was registered, and the charge sheet was filed in C.C. No. 34011/2024 before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
However, the Court found significant gaps and contradictions in the complaint and the timeline, including the fact that the complainant returned home with the petitioner the following morning, did not raise alarm immediately, and that the chats and communication exchanged between them indicated a sustained consensual relationship.
The Court observed:
“It would only indicate that the acts between the petitioner and the complainant are all consensual.”
“A Criminal Trial Cannot Be a Ritualistic Procession Towards Miscarriage of Justice” — High Court Applies Apex Court’s Standard for Quashing Rape FIRs in Consensual Context
Drawing extensively from Supreme Court precedent, Justice Nagaprasanna cited landmark decisions such as Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, and Uday v. State of Karnataka, to underscore that not every failed relationship or post-intimacy regret amounts to rape, especially where the relationship had mutuality of intention and volition.
In particular, the High Court stressed that a trial should not be permitted to continue where the documentary record, including social media interactions, unequivocally negates the element of criminality. It held:
“If the present prosecution were permitted to meander into a trial, it would be nothing but a ritualistic procession towards miscarriage of justice and indeed become an abuse of the process of the law.”
The Court also found fault with the investigating officer for failing to include the chat records in the charge sheet, despite their relevance, and noted that the chats presented to the Court—though not reproduced in the order for decency—clearly demonstrated mutual flirtation, consent, and continued romantic interactions.
“Delay in Lodging the Complaint, Return Home With the Accused, and Omission of Material Evidence—All Point to an Afterthought” — High Court Finds No Prima Facie Offence
Reading the complaint in its entirety, the High Court noted that the complainant had met the petitioner voluntarily, went to a hotel room of her own accord, spent the night, and only after experiencing physical discomfort did she perceive the act as non-consensual. There was no immediate outcry, no report to hotel staff or police at the time, and no corroborative medical report indicating coercion or assault.
The Court quoted the Supreme Court in Tilak Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh to reiterate that:
“Seeing the age of the prosecutrix which is around 40 years, it can be easily inferred that she knew what could be the consequences of allowing a male friend into her bedroom at night… the act seems to be consensual in nature.”
Thus, the Court concluded that the ingredients of Section 64 of the BNS were not made out, and that continuing the criminal process would serve no ends of justice.
“The Relationship, Even If It Foundered, Originated from Free Will and Emotional Agency—Not Coercion” — High Court Restates Boundaries of Criminal Law in Intimate Relationships
The judgment makes an emphatic statement on how courts should handle cases arising from private, romantic, or physical relationships entered voluntarily, especially when criminal charges are initiated after the end of such relationships.
Justice Nagaprasanna summed up the jurisprudence as follows:
“A relationship born of mutual volition, even if it founders in disappointment, cannot, save in the clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under criminal law.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR in Crime No. 306/2024 and the proceedings in C.C. No. 34011/2024 pending before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, bringing an end to what it held was a case of personal remorse, not legal wrongdoing.
Date of Decision: October 25, 2025
