AKSHY KUMAR B H vs STATE BY BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60945
CRL.P No. 26 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010716502024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 26 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

AKSHY KUMAR B H
S/O HANUMANTAYYA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.295, 5 D CROSS
MALGALA NAGARABHAVI
BENGALURU

ALSO AT PERMANENT ADDRESS;
BAYRSANDRA, BELLURU, NAGAMANGALA,
MANDYA-571401.

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M SUBRAMANI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-01
CITY CIVIL COURT BANGALORE
COURT COMPLEX

2. SAMPRIT K
D/O KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
ND
NO.82, 2 MAIN ROAD,
VINAYAKANAGAR
BENGALURU-560073
…RESPONDENTS











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60945
CRL.P No. 26 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010716502024


(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
S.C.NO.1463/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE
PRINICPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCH-54) AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs;
1. Call for the records in S.C.No.1463/2024
pending on the file of the Hon’ble Prinicpal City
Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-
54).


2. Quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.
1463/2024 pending on the file of the Honble
Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at
Bengaluru City- (CCH-54) in so far as the
petitioner is concerned.

3. Grant such other reliefs as deems fit under the
facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.


2. On 15.06.2024 respondent No.2 had filed a
complaint which came to be registered as Crime
No.238 of 2024 by the Bagalagunte Police Station for
offences under Sections 506, 376 and 420 of IPC.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60945
CRL.P No. 26 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010716502024


Upon investigation, a charge sheet came to be laid
on 28.08.2024 which is now pending in
S.C.No.1463/2024. Challenging the same the
petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.

3. The complaint filed by respondent No.2 was that the
petitioner and respondent No.2 got to know each
other in the year 2018. Thereafter, it is alleged that
in the month of June 2019, the petitioner has had
forcible sexual intercourse with respondent No.2 and
thereafter had indicated that the petitioner would
marry respondent No.2. Subsequently, the petitioner
and respondent No.2 have had sexual intercourse on
several occasions in July 2019, August 2021,
September 2021, November 2021, April 2022 and in
the years 2023 and 2024, alleging that the petitioner
is reneging on the promise to marry, the aforesaid
complaint came to be filed.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner,
is that the complaint was filed as an afterthought and
as a counter to the complaint filed by the father of
the petitioner on 25.04.2024, wherein the father of
the petitioner had alleged that respondent No.2 and
her mother were trying to force the petitioner to get
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60945
CRL.P No. 26 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010716502024


married to respondent No.2 after her affair with one
other person had failed.

5. His submission is that in the said complaint the
statement of respondent No.2 has been recorded
where none of the instances as alleged from the
years 2018 to 2024 in the present matter have been
alleged.

6. His submission firstly is that the complaint itself is a
false complaint, none of the events having occurred.
Secondly, and in the alternative, he submits that
even if the said events have occurred, they are
consensual in nature over a period of 6 years and
that it is only after the relationship had soared that a
complaint had been filed by respondent No.2.

7. In this regard he relies upon the decision of a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Ramdas @
Ramdas Patil V. State of Karnataka
[Crl.P.No.10701/2025 dated 16.10.2026] , more
particularly para 12.1 to 12.10 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference.
“12.1. The Apex Court, in the case of Dr. DHRUVARAM
MURLIDHAR SONAR supra, draws with unmistakable
clarity, the doctrinal line that separates rape from
consensual intimacy, where two adults of their
own volition, engage in consensual sexual relation
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60945
CRL.P No. 26 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010716502024


over a sustained period, the subsequent refusal of
the man to marry the woman, howsoever
regrettable, does not, ipso facto, transmute such

intimacy into the offence of rape as punishable
under Section 376 of the IPC.
12.2. The principle is reaffirmed in SHAMBHU
KHARWAR supra where the Apex Court interdicted the
criminal process at the threshold holding that the

relationship between the parties was purely
consensual and accordingly quashed the crime as
well as the charge sheet.
12.3. Likewise, in NAIM AHAMED v. STATE (NCT OF
DELHI) [ (2023) 15 SCC 385 ], the Apex Court

addressed an identical factual complexion, where
the complainant had even become pregnant on
account of the relationship, and
yet held that such circumstance, by itself cannot
clothe the relationship with criminality, for
pregnancy arising out of consensual intimacy.
12.4. In SAMADHAN supra the Apex Court sounded a
note of stern caution against the disquieting
tendency of coloring failed relationships, with the
hue of heinous crimes. The Apex Court holds that
mere breakdown of a relationship between the
consenting adults, cannot constitute rape nor can
the criminal law be set into motion as a retaliatory
instrument, merely because the relationship did
not ultimately culminate in marriage.
12.5. Further, in AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL, the Apex
Court observes that where the complainant is
already married, the allegation of physical
intimacy induced by promise of marriage stands
on infirm grounds, for a promise which is ex-facie
unenforceable, cannot in those circumstances, be
elevated into a foundation of imputing criminality.
12.6. In BATLANKI KESHAV (KESAVA) KUMAR
ANURAG supra the Apex Court goes even further,

on a perusal of contemporaneous chats, it found
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60945
CRL.P No. 26 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010716502024


that the complainant had exhibited manipulative
and vindictive tendencies and held that man
backing out of marriage, even assuming such
promise existed, cannot automatically attract the
offence of rape. Holding the prosecution to be
malicious and fabricated, the Apex Court
obliterates the proceedings against the accused.
12.7. In the light of the overwhelming majority of such
decisions, the Apex Court has exercised its
Constitutional and inherent jurisdiction to arrest the
criminal process, even at the stage of registration
of the crime, where the allegation taken to their
highest, disclose nothing beyond a consensual

relationship subsequently turning sore. 12.8. The
Apex Court in PRAMOD KUMAR NAVRATNA supra
observes that the essential ingredient to constitute the
offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC for the
promise of marriage is that the promise must be made
with the intention of not fulfilling it at the very outset. It
is reiterated that a consensual relationship, which turns

sour would not amount to a false promise of marriage.
12.9. In the case of SHAILESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI
MAKWANA , the Apex Court, while following its earlier
judgment in the case of MAHESH DAMU KHARE v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2024) 11
SCC 398, holds that there can be no false promise of
marriage when the parties have had a prolonged
relationship knowing that they are married to other

spouses.
12.10. The Apex Court in KUNAL RAMESHBHAI
KALYANI interprets the ingredients of the offence
under Section 69 of the BNS and observes that the
promise to marry made with the intention of not being

fulfilled would become a deceitful conduct punishable
under this provision. The Apex Court further holds that
mere communication of the desire of the accused to
marry the complainant would not amount to using
deceitful means.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60945
CRL.P No. 26 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010716502024


Thus, the offence under Section 69 of the BNS is loosely
laid against the petitioner.”

8. His submission is that the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Dr. Ramdas’s case considered all the
decisions in relation to false promises to marry and
has categorically come to a conclusion that for the
ingredients of the provision to apply, there must
have been a promise to marry made with the
intention of not being fulfilled, accompanied by
deceitful conduct punishable under the said
provision.

9. In the present case, his submission is that even
according to the complaint, from the year 2018 till
the year 2024, that is for a period of 6 years, the
petitioner and respondent No.2 have been having
consensual sexual intercourse, except for making a
vague statement that there was a promise to marry,
there is no other statement made by respondent
No.2

10. His submission is that the consensual relationship
having gone on for over a period of 6 years, only
once the relationship had soured, the complaint
came to be filed.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60945
CRL.P No. 26 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010716502024



11. On this ground, he submits that the above petition is
required to be allowed and the proceedings against
the petitioner to be quashed.

12. Learned HCGP would submit that the statement of
the mother and respondent No.2 supports the case of
the complaint. Her submission is also that the
medical report supports the fact of sexual intercourse
having occurred. On that ground, she submits that a
charge sheet has been laid requiring trial in the
matter.

13. Notice having been issued to respondent No.2,
respondent No.2 though served has chosen to be
unrepresented.

14. Heard Sri. M. Subramani, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP for
Respondent No.1. Perused papers.

15. A perusal of the complaint would indicate that the
relationship between the petitioner and respondent
No.2 commenced in the year 2018. They having
exchanged their respective mobile numbers were
having conversations on the said mobile. In the
month of June 2019, at the instance of the
petitioner, respondent No.2 is alleged to have visited
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60945
CRL.P No. 26 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010716502024


the house of the sister of the petitioner and
subsequently, during the several years, she has
visited the house of the sister, the maternal aunts as
also a hotel.

16. In the year 2021, it is alleged that on account of the
petitioner having interfered with the studies of
respondent No.2, the principal had also issued a T.C.
Even thereafter, respondent No.2 has visited the
houses of the sister and aunts of the petitioner,
wherein it is alleged that they have had sexual
intercourse. The manner in which the relationship
between the petitioner and respondent No.2, both of
them being aged 24 years as on the date of filing of
the petition in the year 2025, indicates that the
relationship between the petitioner and respondent
No.2 was consensual in nature, they being
youngsters in their 20’s.

17. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr.
Ramdas’s case has considered the various decisions
of the Hon'ble Apex Court as also the decisions of the
various other High Courts as extracted supra and has
categorically held that there has to be an intention to
be a deceitful conduct punishable under the
provision. The promise to marry must have been
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60945
CRL.P No. 26 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010716502024


made with the intention of not being fulfilled, and the
subsequent souring of a relationship would not
amount to an offence when two adults of their own
volition have engaged in a consensual sexual
relationship over a sustained period, the subsequent
refusal of the man to marry the woman would not
ipso facto transmute such intimacy into the offence
of rape as punishable under Section 376 of IPC. This
Court agrees with the said conclusion of the Co-
ordinate Bench, which has considered the various
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

18. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the
following:
ORDER

i) Criminal petition is allowed .


ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.1463/2024 pending on
the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge
at Bengaluru City- (CCH-54) insofar as the petitioner
is concerned, is hereby quashed.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE

KTY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1