MR SUNNY FRANCIS vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56727
CRL.P No. 13435 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010628602025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13435 OF 2025
(482(CR.PC) / 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MR. SUNNY FRANCIS,
S/O M.T. FRANCIS,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
TH
RESIDING AT NO.82, 4 FLOOR,
ANJANADRI LAYOUT,
HORAMAVU AGRA POST,
BENGALURU-560043.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. USMAN P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. MS. JISHMITH C.R.,
D/O RAMACHANDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT: LITTLE LILLIES PRE SCHOOL,
ANJANADRI LAYOUT, BABUSA PALYA,
KALYANA NAGAR P.O.,
BENGALURU-560043.
ALSO AT: “MOUNIKA PARK VESTA”
FLAT NO.011. GROUND FLOOR,
DEFENCE COLONY, RAJANNA LAYOUT,
HORAMAVU AGRA,
BENGALURU-560043.
K M
SOMASHEKAR
Digitally signed by K
M SOMASHEKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. DEEPTHI ALVA, HCGP FOR R1)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56727
CRL.P No. 13435 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010628602025
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C (UNDER
SECTION 528 BNSS), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRL.P. AND TO
ST
QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY THE 1
RESPONDENT BANASVADI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU IN CRIME
NO.122/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420,
376, 504 AND 506 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL.
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, MAYOHALL,
BENGALURU CITY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
This criminal petition is filed with the following
prayer:
“Wherefore, the Petitioner respectfully pray
that this Hon’ble Court may be please to allow the
criminal petition and to quash the FIR and complaint
st
registered by the 1 Respondent Banasvadi Police
Station, Bengaluru in Crime No.122/2025 for the
offence punishable under section 420, 376, 504 &
506 of Indian Penal Code, pending on the file of XI
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayohall,
Bengaluru City and pass such other order as this
Hon’ble Court may deems fit to grant in the interest
of justice.”
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56727
CRL.P No. 13435 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010628602025
2. An FIR, as aforementioned, came to be
registered against the petitioner herein based on a
complaint lodged by respondent No.2.
3. The complaint of respondent No.2 reads as
under:
“To,
The Inspector of Police,
Banasawadi Police Station
Bengaluru
Subject: Complaint of Rape, Harassment,
Exploitation and Domestic Violence
I, Ms.Jishmith C.R, R/at House No. 82, Little Lillies
Pre-School, Anjanadri Layout, Kalyana Nagara Post,
Babusa Palya, Bengaluru - 560043, Ph No-
8050296955, hereby lodge a complaint against
Mr.Sunny Francis, for rape, harassment, exploitation
and domestic violence.
In July 2004, I moved to Bangalore with my husband
and started frequenting Kairali restaurant, where I
met Sunny. After quitting my job at Nagarjuna
Savoy, I sent my resume to Sunny, who offered me
a job at Jeo Travels. However, he later claimed the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56727
CRL.P No. 13435 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010628602025
job was unavailable and instead offered me an
accountant position at his restaurant.
Initially, Sunny's behavior seemed friendly and
helpful However, over time, his behaviour turned
exploitative, and he started making unwanted
advances towards me. Despite my clear rejection of
his advances, Sunny continued to harass me, using
his position of power and influence to coerce me into
submission.
That On 20/03/2006, Sunny visited my previous
residence at Ramaswamypalya and brutally raped
me and blackmailed me not to report it. This lack of
support and protection from my husband
emboldened Sunny, who continued to exploit and
abuse me.
The exploitation escalated, with Sunny forcing me to
work long hours at his restaurant, performing tasks
beyond my job description, and eventually, raping
me at his farmhouse in Bagalur. This resulted in a
pregnancy, and despite having a child with him,
Sunny continued to demand sexual favours and rape
me habitually.
Sunny's abuse and exploitation were not limited to
physical and sexual violence. He also subjected me
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56727
CRL.P No. 13435 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010628602025
to emotional and psychological abuse, using his
power and influence to control and manipulate me.
I request that you take immediate action against and
register an fir against sunny. I also request
protection and support for myself and my child. ”
4. The case of the petitioner is that he had leased
property to respondent No.2. As she did not pay the
agreed rents and also did not vacate the premises when
called upon to do so, he initiated eviction proceedings
against respondent No.2 in accordance with law. As a
counter-blast to the said action of the petitioner,
respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint against the
petitioner.
5. It is further submitted that the commercial
original suit filed for evicting respondent No.2 is decreed in
favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the
petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail in the present
proceedings.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56727
CRL.P No. 13435 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010628602025
6. In the course of arguments, initially, the
petitioner contended that he never had any sexual
intercourse with respondent No.2. Nevertheless, as per the
directions of trial court, DNA Test of the petitioner,
respondent No.2 and the son of respondent No.2 has been
conducted and a report has been submitted for perusal of
this Court. The DNA Test Report reveals that the son born
to respondent No.2-complainant is fathered by the
petitioner herein.
7. After the receipt of the DNA Report, it is
submitted by the petitioner that the sexual intercourse the
petitioner and respondent No.2 had with each other was
consensual and it was never a rape. It is further submitted
that perusal of the complaint reveals that there has been a
delay of 19 years in filing the complaint, which requires to
be quashed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Samadhan Vs. State of
Hon’ble Apex court passed in
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56727
CRL.P No. 13435 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010628602025
1
Maharashtra and Another
wherein paragraphs 29, 30, 32
and 40 read as under:
“29.
This Court has, on numerous occasions, taken
note of the disquieting tendency wherein failed or
broken relationships are given the colour of
criminality. The offence of rape, being of the gravest
kind, must be invoked only in cases where there
exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence
of free consent. To convert every sour relationship
into an offence of rape not only trivialises the
seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the
accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such
instances transcend the realm of mere personal
discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery
in this regard is a matter of profound concern and
calls for condemnation.
30.
In Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5
SCC 764, this Court speaking through one of us
(Nagarathna, J.) observed that a mere break-up of a
relationship between a consenting couple cannot
result in the initiation of criminal proceedings. What
was a consensual relationship between the parties at
the initial stages cannot be given a colour of
criminality when the said relationship does not
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56727
CRL.P No. 13435 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010628602025
fructify into a marriage. The relevant portion is
extracted as under:
“20. In our view, taking the allegations in
the FIR and the charge-sheet as they
stand, the crucial ingredients of the offence
under Section 376(2)(n)IPC are absent. A
review of the FIR and the complainant's
statement under Section 164CrPC discloses
no indication that any promise of marriage
was extended at the outset of their
relationship in 2017. Therefore, even if the
prosecution's case is accepted at its face
value, it cannot be concluded that the
complainant engaged in a sexual
relationship with the appellant solely on
account of any assurance of marriage from
the appellant. The relationship between the
parties was cordial and also consensual in
nature. A mere break up of a relationship
between a consenting couple cannot result
in initiation of criminal proceedings. What
was a consensual relationship between the
parties at the initial stages cannot be given
a colour of criminality when the said
relationship does not fructify into a marital
relationship. Further, both parties are now
married to someone else and have moved
on in their respective lives. Thus, in our
view, the continuation of the prosecution in
the present case would amount to a gross
abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no
purpose would be served by continuing the
prosecution.”
(underlining by us)
32.
Upon a careful consideration of the record in the
present case, we are unable to discern any material
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56727
CRL.P No. 13435 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010628602025
that would warrant the invocation of Section
376(2)(n) of the IPC. The facts of the present case
unmistakably indicate that it is a classic instance of a
consensual relationship having subsequently turned
acrimonious.
40.
In view of the foregoing analysis, we are unable
to concur with the findings recorded by the High
Court, inasmuch as the present case pertains to a
consensual relationship, and the acts of respondent
No. 2 clearly manifest consent to such a relationship
devoid of any coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation
as contemplated in Section 19 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872. In our opinion, the High Court's refusal to
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS is
unsustainable. The acts complained of in the present
case occurred within the contours of a relationship
that was, at the time, voluntary and willing. The
continuation of the prosecution in such facts would
be nothing short of an abuse of the court
machinery.”
8. Per contra, counsel for respondent No.2 submits
that irrespective of when the rape happens it is a rape
even it is before 19 years. It is submitted that the societal
pressure prevented respondent No.2 from filing a
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56727
CRL.P No. 13435 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010628602025
complaint immediately. On the said ground, it is prayed
that the petition be dismissed.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader
supports the contention of respondent No.2. She further
submits that admittedly, the petitioner was in an illicit
relationship with respondent No.2 and the prima facie
investigation reveals that she has been exploited by the
petitioner. Based upon the complaint, what has been
registered is an FIR under Sections 420, 376, 504 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the investigation is
completed, if it is found that the petitioner is guilty of any
of the offences, as contemplated in law, appropriate police
report will be filed. If it is found that the petitioner is not
guilty of any of the offences, then a ‘B’ Report will be filed.
It is further submitted that the petitioner has adequate
protection as he has secured anticipatory bail. It is also
submitted that it is not a fit case that this Court should
exercise its inherent powers as contemplated under
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56727
CRL.P No. 13435 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010628602025
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code/Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
10. The question that arises for consideration is
whether the petitioner has made out a case for invoking
the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNSS and to quash the FIR filed
against him.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner, initially, took up the
contention that he never had sexual intercourse with
respondent No.2. However, after receipt of DNA Report
which reveals that he fathered the child of respondent
No.2, he changed his contention to that of consensual sex.
Though reading of the complaint prima facie indicates that
there was consensual sexual intercourse between the
petitioner and respondent No.2, whether the transaction
between the petitioner and respondent No.2 has resulted
in any offence or not, or that the sexual intercourse
between them was consensual or not can be established
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56727
CRL.P No. 13435 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010628602025
only after an investigation/trial. Further, as admitted by
the parties, the petitioner has obtained an anticipatory
bail.
12. On perusal of the allegations in the complaint
and the FIR, one cannot, based on the contents of the
same, come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not
committed any of the offences as alleged. It requires
investigation and trial.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
KMS,
CT:BCK
LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 1