Court’s decision
The Karnataka High Court, per Justice M. Nagaprasanna, allowed the petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 seeking quashing of proceedings arising from an FIR registered under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and allied provisions. The Court held that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the ingredients of rape or any non-consensual act. The interactions between the parties, spanning several months, demonstrated voluntary participation, including travel, meetings, private stays, social media interactions, and continued communication.
The Court observed that the complaint was lodged only after the relationship deteriorated, and the narrative suggested consensual intimacy rather than coercion. The delay in lodging the FIR, absence of immediate complaint, and continuing closeness between the parties contradicted the accusation of a forced act. The Court also emphasised that criminal law could not be weaponised to penalise consensual conduct retrospectively. Relying on settled jurisprudence from the Supreme Court on misuse of rape provisions where the factual matrix shows consensual intimacy, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings. It reiterated that criminal prosecution cannot be sustained when the allegations lack fundamental ingredients of the offence.
Facts
The Petitioner and the complainant connected through a dating application and subsequently began interacting regularly. They met on multiple occasions, spent time together in public spaces, private establishments, and social settings, travelled together, and remained in physical proximity voluntarily. Their social media chats revealed cordial exchanges, affectionate communication, and plans for meetings. They continued to stay in contact over several months, including visiting hotels for consensual intimacy.
At no point during these meetings did the complainant raise an alarm or object. No allegations of force, threat, intoxication, or coercion emerged contemporaneously. The FIR was filed only after the relationship soured. The complaint stated that during one private meeting, the Petitioner allegedly engaged in inappropriate conduct without consent. However, the earlier consistent voluntary conduct contradicted the claim. The medical examination did not reveal evidence supporting the accusation. Based on this, the Petitioner approached the High Court to quash the FIR contending that the allegations were inherently improbable.
Issues
The primary issues before the Court were:
- Whether the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of rape under Section 64 BNS.
- Whether the prolonged consensual relationship, accompanied by voluntary travel, meetings, and intimacy, negated the complainant’s later claim of lack of consent.
- Whether criminal proceedings could continue when the complaint appeared to arise from a breakdown in the relationship rather than from coercive conduct.
- Whether the FIR constituted an abuse of process requiring intervention under Article 226.
Petitioner’s arguments
The Petitioner argued that the entire relationship was consensual, reflected in messages, travel history, meetings, and voluntary physical interaction. It was submitted that the complainant took no steps to object, escape, or seek help during any interaction. The FIR was filed only after a disagreement, indicating an afterthought rather than a genuine allegation. The Petitioner emphasised that there was no threat, force, intoxication, or manipulation, and the interactions occurred in public spaces and hotels chosen jointly. It was argued that the complaint distorted consensual intimacy into an allegation of rape, which the law does not permit. The Petitioner sought quashing on the ground that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of criminal process.
Respondent’s arguments
The Respondent-State opposed quashing and argued that the allegations disclosed non-consensual conduct during one specific meeting in a private hotel. The State submitted that the complainant’s reluctance to immediately report could not invalidate her accusation, and that investigation should continue to determine whether consent was absent in the specific incident. The State contended that even in relationships involving prior intimacy, the absence of consent during one particular act constitutes an offence. It urged the Court not to prematurely evaluate evidence, stating that investigation was necessary to ascertain the circumstances.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined statutory provisions under Section 64 BNS, which require proof of absence of consent. Consent must be voluntary, unequivocal, and not induced by threat, misconception, or coercion. The Court noted that the complainant’s narrative lacked allegations establishing these elements. Material on record demonstrated the complainant’s willingness to stay with the Petitioner, meet repeatedly, and engage in intimacy voluntarily. None of the essential elements of coercion were present.
The Court referred to Supreme Court jurisprudence where consensual relationships later converted into rape allegations were quashed due to absence of essential ingredients. It emphasised that criminal law requires strict scrutiny when intimate relationships are retrospectively reframed as offences, especially when the record reveals mutual affection and voluntary physical proximity.
The Court concluded that the facts placed the case outside the scope of Section 64 BNS, as the allegations failed to meet the statutory threshold.
Precedent analysis
Relying on binding authorities, the Court highlighted that where parties engage in consensual intimacy over a prolonged period, allegations of rape arising out of subsequent misunderstandings or disputes do not satisfy the statutory requirements. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that relationships arising out of social interactions, dating applications, voluntary travel, and mutual closeness cannot be criminalised unless clear evidence of coercion is established. These precedents guided the Court’s analysis, strengthening the conclusion that the complaint was an afterthought.
Court’s reasoning
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the complaint lacked coherence with the undisputed factual background of voluntary meetings, shared experiences, and physical closeness. The Court noted that the conduct of the complainant before, during, and after the alleged incident contradicted the theory of lack of consent. The absence of immediate complaint, cordial chats following the alleged event, and routine interaction demonstrated that no coercive act occurred.
The Court emphasised that criminal prosecution must be grounded in clear allegations fulfilling statutory elements and cannot proceed merely because a relationship has broken down. It held that permitting prosecution in such cases would trivialise the gravity of genuine sexual assault cases and lead to misuse of stringent penal provisions. Accordingly, the FIR was quashed.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR registered under Section 64 BNS, holding that the allegations did not disclose the offence of rape. The Court reaffirmed that consensual intimacy cannot be retrospectively portrayed as non-consensual to initiate criminal prosecution. The judgment strengthens the principle that criminal law must not be misused to settle personal grievances arising from failed relationships. All proceedings arising from the FIR were accordingly set aside.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the judicial stance that criminal law cannot intrude into consensual adult relationships. It provides clarity for cases involving dating apps, modern social interactions, and consensual intimacy. The ruling will serve as a benchmark for courts addressing allegations emerging from failed relationships where both parties voluntarily engaged in physical and emotional closeness. It also protects individuals from malicious prosecution and prevents dilution of the seriousness of sexual offences.