SHRI ADITHYA GOPAL vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61304
CRL.P No. 6255 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010290712025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6255 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)

/ 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

SHRI ADITHYA GOPAL
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN T.
FLAT NO. 321, C BLOCK, ROAD NO. 25
NEAR MAHATMA GANDHI PARK
ALKAPUR TOWNSHIP
VTC MANIKONDA (JAGIR)
P.O. MANIKONDA
DISTRICT K.V. RANGAREDDY
TELANGANA 500 089
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK BANNIDINNI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BY MAHADEVPURA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU

2. SMT. VIDHYA
D/O. M.DINAKARAN
NO.401, URBAN COMFORTS STAGE-1,
ASHRAYA LAYOUT, MAHADEVAPURA
BENGALURU 560048.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANJEET KUMAR., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. KIRAN KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRIME NO.177 OF
2025 PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE XXIX ADDITIONAL











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61304
CRL.P No. 6255 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010290712025



JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL AT BENGALURU AND QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.177 OF 2025 PENDING ADJUDICATION
BEFORE THE XXIX ADDL. JM, MAYO HALL AT BENGALURU
(ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXURE-B) AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR
THE OFFENCE P/US/ 115(2), 318(2), 351(2), 64 AND 69 OF THE BNS
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:

i. Call for records in Crime No.177 of 2025 pending
adjudication before the XXIX Additional Judicial
Magistrate, Mayo Hall at Bengaluru and quash the
proceedings in Cr.No.177 of 2025 pending
adjudication before the XXIX Addl. Jm, Mayo Hall
at Bengaluru (Annexure-A and Annexure-B)
against the petitioner for the offence p/u/s/
115(2), 318(2), 351(2), 64 and 69 of the BNS .

ii. Pass any other reliefs as deemed fit by this
Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of the case in
the interest of justice and equity.



2. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 18.03.2025,
alleging that on 03.02.2025 at about 5.00 p.m.,
when she visited the petitioner's flat, an argument
ensued between them, during which the petitioner
assaulted her and forcibly had sexual intercourse
with her. It was also alleged that the petitioner had
made a promise to marry her, which he did not fulfil,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61304
CRL.P No. 6255 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010290712025



and had threatened to kill her. On the basis of the
said complaint, Mahadevapura Police Station
registered Crime No.177/2025 for the offences
punishable under Sections 115(2), 318(2), 351(2)
and 64 of the BNS. The petitioner has called in
question the said proceedings.

3. Sri Ashok Bannidinni, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, makes the following submissions:

3.1. The petitioner and respondent No.2 were
colleagues while working at Amazon and first
met at an Amazon Conclave in Bengaluru. They
thereafter developed a relationship and were
also physically intimate. At the relevant time,
both the petitioner and respondent No.2 were
married to other persons.

3.2. It is submitted that, during the course of their
relationship, they discussed obtaining divorces
from their respective spouses and marrying
each other. However, the relationship
subsequently deteriorated following a serious
disagreement, and the proposed marriage did
not materialise.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61304
CRL.P No. 6255 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010290712025




3.3. Learned counsel submits that, even at the time
of the earlier disagreement, respondent No.2
lodged a complaint on 03.02.2025, which was
registered as Crime No.172/2025. The said
complaint was subsequently not pursued by
respondent No.2.

3.4. It is submitted that respondent No.2 was fully
aware that the petitioner was married, just as
she herself was married to another person. In
those circumstances, the allegation that the
petitioner had induced respondent No.2 to
enter into a physical relationship by promising
to marry her is, according to learned counsel,
wholly untenable.

3.5. Learned counsel further submits that, although
there were discussions between the parties
about obtaining divorces and marrying each
other, the proposal did not materialise. The
relationship thereafter deteriorated, ultimately
resulting in the present complaint.

3.6. It is also submitted that the complaint was
brought to the notice of the petitioner's
employer, as a consequence of which the
petitioner is stated to have lost his
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61304
CRL.P No. 6255 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010290712025



employment. Learned counsel contends that
the complaint is false and that permitting the
proceedings to continue would amount to an
abuse of the process of law.

4. Sri Kiran Kumar B.M., learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2, makes the following submissions:

4.1. Learned counsel initially contended that there
was no relationship between the petitioner and
respondent No.2. However, when the earlier
complaint dated 03.02.2025 was brought to his
notice, he accepted that the parties had been in
a relationship.

4.2. As regards the earlier complaint, learned
counsel submits that the Mahadevapura Police
Station issued a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR)
on 04.02.2025.

4.3. Learned counsel submits that, apart from the
relationship between the parties, the petitioner
had physically assaulted respondent No.2. It is
further submitted that respondent No.2
suffered depression and underwent medical
treatment.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61304
CRL.P No. 6255 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010290712025




4.4. Learned counsel contends that respondent No.2
was subjected to harassment and sexual abuse
by the petitioner on the basis of the promise of
marriage. On that ground, he submits that the
proceedings ought to continue and that the
petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard Sri Ashok Bannidinni, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Kiran Kumar B.M., learned counsel for
respondent No.2, and Sri Ranjith Kumar, learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for
respondent No.1. Perused the papers.

6. From the records, it is evident that respondent No.2
had earlier approached the Mahadevapura Police
Station with a complaint dated 03.02.2025, pursuant
to which an NCR was issued on 04.02.2025. The
material placed before this Court indicates that
respondent No.2 did not pursue the said complaint at
that stage. The earlier complaint is relevant to the
extent that it records the nature of the relationship
between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and the
circumstances in which the dispute between them
arose.

7. A perusal of the earlier complaint indicates that the
petitioner and respondent No.2 were in a relationship
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61304
CRL.P No. 6255 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010290712025



while both were married to other persons. The
records also indicate that there were disagreements
between them. The principal allegation forming the
basis of the present prosecution concerns the alleged
promise of marriage and the physical relationship
between the parties. The circumstances in which the
relationship commenced and the point at which the
alleged promise of marriage was made are,
therefore, relevant to the consideration of the
allegation of sexual intercourse induced by a false
promise of marriage.

8. The fact that both parties were married to other
persons when their relationship commenced is a
relevant circumstance. The material placed before
this Court indicates that the physical relationship
between them had commenced before the
discussions concerning marriage. It is also the
petitioner's case that the discussions about marriage
arose subsequently, in the course of an already
existing relationship, and that the proposal did not
materialise after the relationship deteriorated.

9. A distinction has to be maintained between a promise
of marriage made with no intention of fulfilling it
from the inception, and a subsequent failure of a
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61304
CRL.P No. 6255 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010290712025



relationship or a proposal for marriage to culminate
in marriage. The latter circumstance, by itself, does
not establish that the earlier promise, if any, was
false from the outset. The fact that the parties were
married to other persons is also relevant in assessing
the circumstances in which the alleged promise was
made and understood. However, the marital status of
the parties cannot, by itself, conclude the question
whether a promise was made with a dishonest
intention.

10. The medical records and documents evidencing
payments produced by respondent No.2 are not
being disbelieved. Their evidentiary value and the
circumstances in which the expenditure was incurred
are matters to be assessed in accordance with law.
However, those documents, by themselves, do not
establish that the physical relationship between the
parties commenced on account of a promise of
marriage made with no intention of fulfilling it. The
material placed before this Court indicates that the
parties were adults, were gainfully employed and had
been in a relationship before the discussions
concerning marriage. These circumstances are
relevant to the assessment of the allegation founded
on the alleged false promise.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61304
CRL.P No. 6255 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010290712025




11. The subsequent failure of the parties to marry, in the
circumstances disclosed in the material placed before
this Court, cannot by itself be treated as proof that
the petitioner had made a false promise of marriage
from the inception of the relationship. The
chronology of the relationship, the fact that both
parties were married to other persons, and the fact
that the discussions concerning marriage arose after
the relationship had commenced, have to be
considered together. On the material placed before
this Court, the allegation that the petitioner induced
respondent No.2 to enter into the relationship by
making a false promise of marriage is not supported
by the necessary factual foundation.

12. This Court is conscious that the failure of a
relationship to culminate in marriage cannot, by
itself, be a ground to treat a complaint alleging
sexual offences as false. Equally, the filing of a
complaint alleging sexual assault is not to be viewed
as an automatic consequence of a failed relationship.
Each allegation must be examined on its own facts
and in the light of the ingredients of the offence
invoked.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61304
CRL.P No. 6255 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010290712025




13. The fact that the petitioner is stated to have lost his
employment following the complaint is not a
circumstance on which the existence or otherwise of
a criminal offence can be determined.

14. Having regard to the circumstances emerging from
the material placed before this Court, particularly the
earlier complaint, the admitted relationship between
the parties, the chronology of the relationship and
the subsequent discussions concerning marriage, this
Court is of the view that the allegation founded on
the alleged false promise of marriage does not
disclose the requisite ingredients of the offence. The
dispute, insofar as it concerns the breakdown of the
relationship and the failure of the proposed marriage
to materialise, cannot by itself be given a criminal
character.

15. In the circumstances, and for the reasons stated
above, this Court is of the view that continuation of
the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the
process of law. In the above circumstances this court
passes the following:
ORDER
allowed
i. The criminal petition is .
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61304
CRL.P No. 6255 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010290712025




ii. The proceedings in Crime No.177/2025 of
Mahadevapura Police Station, pending
before the XXIX Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall,
Bengaluru, are quashed.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru


(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE


SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Verified