Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24162

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.Nagaprasanna, J
Chandru V. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.P No. 13557 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arun Kumar Y.H.
For the Respondents: Sowmya R., Rudresha D.

A long-term consensual sexual relationship cannot be retrospectively criminalized as rape upon a breakup. Criminal proceedings for such offences constitute an abuse of process unless substantiated by evidence of a false promise of marriage made in bad faith at the inception of the relationship.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 64, 74, 115(2), 118(1), 318(4), 324(4), 351(2), 352 - Quashing of proceedings - Consensual long-term relationship - Relationship ending as breakup - Allegations of rape and atrocities - Applicability of specific criminal provisions.

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of charge sheet - Where the relationship between the parties is long-term and consensual, the invocation of criminal law for rape/sexual assault upon a subsequent breakup is an abuse of process when clear evidence of deceit or false promise of marriage at the inception is absent. (Paras 9, 11)

(C) Atrocities Act - Section 3(2)(v) - The provision is only attracted if an underlying offence under the penal code is punishable with imprisonment for ten years or more. If such primary offence is quashed, the charge under the special act cannot independently sustain. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
Parties maintained a relationship for five years. Upon the breakdown of the relationship, a criminal complaint was registered alleging offences of rape, sexual harassment, assault, cheating, and intimidation, invoking sections of the penal code and the special legislation regarding atrocities against protected classes. A charge sheet followed, leading to the current petition for quashing.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the sexual relationship was consensual and spanned several years. Following established jurisprudence, a failed long-term relationship does not automatically constitute the offence of rape. Consequently, charges under the provisions relating to rape and sexual assault were quashed, leading to the automatic removal of the charge under the atrocities act as the threshold for sentencing was no longer met.

Issues: Whether the proceedings for alleged offences of rape and atrocities could be maintained when the underlying facts indicate a long-term consensual relationship that ended in a breakup, and whether the primary offences were sufficiently established to proceed to trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Consensual physical intimacy within a long-term relationship does not constitute rape merely because the relationship failed to lead to marriage. Invoking criminal machinery for broken relationships constitutes an abuse of process. Without the sustained primary charge of rape, the derivative charge of atrocities against protected classes cannot legally stand.

Result: Petition allowed in-part; proceedings for certain penal sections sustained, while charges under sexual assault and atrocities act provisions were quashed.

Table of Content
1. procedural context and factual narrative of the parties' relationship. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' contentions regarding consent and the validity of the sexual relationship. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. examination of the complaint and evidence within the charge sheet. (Para 7 , 8)
4. consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape under bns/ipc. (Para 9)
5. allegations involving physical assault and financial disputes require full evidentiary trial. (Para 10)
6. inapplicability of sc/st act provisions upon dismissal of underlying major penal charges. (Para 11 , 12)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2025 IN SPL.C.NO.1724/2025 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPL.JUDGE(CCH-71) AT BENGALURU, PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/SEC.3(2)(v) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SEC.64, 74, 115(2), 118(1), 318(4), 324(4), 351(2), 352 OF THE BNS 2023 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A; 2.CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN SPL.C.C.NO.1724/2025 IN CR.NO.160/2025 DATED 09.06.2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 NANDINI LAYOUT P.S. FOR THE ALLEGED OFFNECES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION AFTER COMPLETION OF THE INVESTIGATION, THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE HAVE LAID THE CHARGE SHEET BEFORE THE CCH-71 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFENCES P/U/SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA ACT 1989, AND SEC.64, 74, 115(2), 118(1), 318(4), 324(4), 351(2), 352 OF BNS 2023 PENDING BEFORE LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPL.JUDGE CCH 71, CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU CITY PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THESE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.1724/2025, pending before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CCH-71), Bengaluru, registered for the offences under Section 3 and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and Sections 64 , 74, 115(2), 118(1), 318(4), 324(4), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS, 2023.

2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Y.H., learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Rudresha D., learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is the accused, respondent No.2, the complainant. Accused and the complainant meet on Facebook. Meeting of the two develops into friendship and blossoms into physical relationship as well. The relationship between the two would go on for 5 years from 2019 to 2024. The allegation is that, the physical relationship with the petitioner had by respondent No.2 - complainant was on promise of marriage and on its breach, the complainant registers a crime. During the period between 2019 and 2024, it is the case of respondent No.2 - complainant that the petitioner has indulged in several acts of assault, financial transactions and consensual relationship with the complainant. The complaint is registered on the allegations of ‘rape’, ‘sexual harassment’, ‘assault’, ‘cheating’, ‘intimidation’ inter alia along with the offences under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet for the afore-quoted offences. Filing of the charge sheet has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the averments made in the petition to contend that the relation between the accused and the complainant were all consensual and it went on for 5 years between 2019 and 2024, but was never on the pretext of marriage. They were all consensual acts and there was neither assault nor intimidation or cheating as is alleged and even any foundation for the all

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24162

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAM.Nagaprasanna, JChandru V. – AppellantVersusState Of Karnataka – RespondentCRL.P No. 13557 of 2025

A long-term consensual sexual relationship cannot be retrospectively criminalized as rape upon a breakup. Criminal proceedings for such offences constitute an abuse of process unless substantiated by evidence of a false promise of marriage made in bad faith at the inception of the relationship.

Cases Referred (4)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.Nagaprasanna, J
Chandru V. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.P No. 13557 of 2025