The court's power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. is limited to examining whether a prima facie case exists; it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or conduct a mini-trial regarding the veracity of evidence or consent.

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED IN C.C. 28493/2025 ARISING OUT OF FINAL REPORT DATED 27.07.2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE ARISING OUT OF FIR DATED 29.05.2025 IN CR.NO.227/2025 REGISTERED FOR THE O/P/U/S 75 AND 78 OF THE BNSS AND SEC. 66(E) OF THE I.T ACT PENDING BEFORE THE XLI ACMM COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.04.2026, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

C.A.V. ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.28493/2025 arising out of Crime No.227/2025 registered by the jurisdictional police.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

The complainant lodged a complaint on 29.05.2025 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 64 , 78, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short "IT Act") against the petitioner (Accused No.1) and others.

3. It is alleged that the complainant became acquainted with the petitioner on 16.11.2024 during a visit to a temple along with her family and friends. Subsequently, on 10.05.2025, when the complainant again visited the temple, the petitioner is alleged to have committed sexual assault against her, while Accused No.2 is stated to have intimidated her into silence. It is further alleged that the petitioner coerced the complainant to revisit the temple on 21.05.2025 under the pretext of performing pooja, during which he made further sexual advances against her will. This culminated in the registration of the complaint on 29.05.2025.

4. Upon completion of investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet. Notably, the offence under Section 64 of BNS initially invoked has been dropped against the petitioner. However, offences under Sections 75 and 78 of BNS and Section 66E of the IT Act have been retained.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that The allegations are inherently improbable and suffer from material inconsistencies, particularly with regard to dates, including overwriting of the date 20.05.2025 as 29.05.2025. The initial allegation of rape having been dropped itself demonstrates falsity of the complaint. The material collected during investigation indicates consensual interaction between the parties, including exchange of messages, photographs, and videos. The surrounding circumstances, including financial transactions, booking of accommodation, and involvement of third parties, probabilize a motivated and concocted complaint. Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

6. Per contra, learned SPP would submit that the charge sheet materials disclose sufficient prima facie material against the petitioner. The dropping of the offence under Section 64 of BNS does not dilute the gravity of remaining offences. The exchange of obscene material, coercion, and intimidation are matters requiring trial