IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1102 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SRI. SRUJAN JAI SURYA G., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O N.GANGADHAR, R/AT FLAT NO. BF 04, SVS WIND GATES, 13^TH STREET, HORAMAVU AGARA MAIN ROAD, KALYAN NAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 043.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M. R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY WEST WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, Digitally signed BENGALURU – 560 001.

by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY

2. MALLIKA GOWDA, Location: High D/O LINGE GOWDA, Court of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.22/1, 7^TH MAIN, 13^TH CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENNGALURU – 560 079.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;

SRI. ARUN K. S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.528 BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.262/2025 OF WEST WOMEN POLICE WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 24th ADDL CJM, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S/ 69, 318(1), 318(2) OF BNS.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

"i) Call for L.C.R in Crime No.262/2025 of West Women Police which is now pending on the file of the 24^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 69, 318(1), 318(2) of BNS.

ii) Quash the FIR against the Petitioner in Crime No.262/2025 of West Women Police which is now pending on the file of the 24^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 69, 318(1), 318(2) of BNS.

iii) Pass any other order/s as deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

2. Heard Sri.Nanjunda Gowda M.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent No.1, Sri.Arun K.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner is the accused, respondent No.2-the complainant. Two meet in 2023 and had relationship for close to two years. The relationship was physical as well. It transpires that both the petitioner and the complainant have traveled to all places. Alleging that relationship between the two has been on the promise of marriage and on its breach, the complainant registers a complaint which become a crime in Crime No.262/2025 for Section 69, 318(1), 318(2) of BNS. 4. The registration of the crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the acts between the two were purely consensual and never on the promise of marriage. The consensual acts cannot form the ingredients under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, is his submission.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

complainant would submit that the complainant would not wish to pursue the matter any further and therefore, would leave the decision to the Court.

7. In that light, what remains is the consideration of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the law that is laid down by the Apex Court in plethora of cases where the consensual acts between the two consenting adults would not become the ingredients of section 69 of BNS.

8. The Apex Court in the case of PRITHIVIRAJAN v.

STATE, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 696, holds that merely because physical relations were established based on a promise of marriage, it will not amount to rape. The judgment reads as follows:

"4. The entire case of the prosecution is that the appellant is being charged, inter-alia, under Section 376 of the IPC for the reason that the appellant had given false promise of marriage to the prosecutrix and thus obtained her consent for sexual relationship but later backed out of his promise, and for that reason it is a case of rape. The logic given here is