Reserved on : 24.02.2026 Pronounced on : 04.03.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.35036 OF 2024 (GM – RES)

BETWEEN:

HARSHADEEP GIRISH PARLATHAYA S/O. P. P. GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 6-66/2 (A1), CHIRAG, BEHIND KANTHERI, DUMAVATHI TEMPLE, AYYAKERE, IDDYA, SURATHKAL, MANGALURU – 575 014.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI MOHAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY I.O., MANGALURU WOMEN POLICE STATION.

2 . XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 SRI PARAMESWARAPPA C., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ZERO FIR DATED 19.10.2024 REGISTERED AS CRIME NO. 106/2024 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 I.E., MANGALORE WOMEN POLICE STATION/1^ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE A) UNDER SECTION 69, 115(2) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA 2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III JMFC COURT, MANGALORE.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.106 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 69 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘BNS’), 2023.

2. Heard Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri C. Parameshwarappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. THE FACTUAL CANVASS:

3.1. The narrative begins in Ireland. In August, 2021, the petitioner then pursuing his Masters Degree in International Management at the National University of Ireland met the 2^nd respondent/complainant. She too was then navigating her academic journey. Friendship sprouted, affection followed. The camaraderie matured into physical relationship. By September, 2022 the petitioner had secured employment with Valeo Vision System. The complainant, despite earnest efforts had not secured employment. Proximity brought them closer, convenience matured into cohabitation. In December, 2022 they began living together, not as strangers bound by compulsion, but as consenting adults sharing companionship.

3.2. For two years, the two had several sexual escapades.

The petitioner then comes to know that the 2^nd respondent was already married and had a 7 years old child. The relationship between the petitioner and the complainant eventually soured. By mid 2024, communication frayed. Expectations collapsed. On 19-10-2024, upon returning to India, the complainant registered the subject complaint before the Women Police Station, Mangalore alleging that the petitioner had established physical relations with her on a false promise of marriage. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.106 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 69 and 115(2) of the BNS. Investigation would ensue. The petitioner calls in question the said crime in the subject petition.

3.3. On 16-01-2025, a coordinate Bench of this Court granted an interim order of stay, which is in subsistence even today. The matter is heard on an application filed by the State, seeking vacation of the interim order.

SUBMISSIONS: PETITIONER’S:

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the relationship between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent for close to two years was purely on consensus. In the complaint, the complainant narrates that due to the relationship of the petitioner, the complainant had to apply and seek divorce from the hands of her husband. But, that is factually incorrect. The relationship between the complainant’s husband and the complainant had strained long a