Karnataka HC Quashes Rape And Cheating Case, Citing Emails And Both Parties’ Marriages When Relationship Began

In brief

The question

1. Whether the material on record disclosed rape under Section 376 IPC, including an initial deceitful intention to marry that vitiated consent.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the pending proceedings arising from Crime No. 390/2021, including the case in S.C. No. 675/2022.

It also directed

Pending applications, if any, were consigned to the record.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the proceedings in S.C. No. 675/2022, arising from Crime No. 390/2021, registered initially under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and later also invoking Section 376 IPC.

¶ 2, 4–7

The second respondent alleged that the petitioner had sexual relations with her on a promise to marry her; the petitioner contended that their relationship was consensual and relied on email correspondence and hotel bookings.

¶ 8–16, 19–20

The Court noted that both parties were married when the relationship began, and that the notice issued to the petitioner referred to Section 376 before the Magistrate had granted permission to invoke that provision.

¶ 8–16, 19–20

A charge sheet was filed, cognizance was taken, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

¶ 11

02Issues

i.1. Whether the material on record disclosed rape under Section 376 IPC, including an initial deceitful intention to marry that vitiated consent.

¶ 21–22, 25–30

ii.2. Whether the pending criminal proceedings should be quashed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

¶ 2, 18, 32

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC, under which the High Court considered whether the pending criminal proceedings warranted quashing.

¶ 2

The Court considered Sections 376 and 420 IPC, focusing on whether the alleged sexual relationship amounted to rape and whether there was an initial intention to deceive by a false promise to marry.

¶ 5–7, 21–22, 30

It also relied on Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1818, as authority supporting its view.

¶ 31

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 164

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376 Section 420

04Reasoning

The Court found no material establishing a promise to marry or deceitful intent at the inception of the relationship.

¶ 21–24, 26

It relied on the emails and evidence that the second respondent had arranged hotel rooms and invited the petitioner to meet, concluding that the material indicated a consensual relationship rather than rape.

¶ 21–24, 26

It further reasoned that, because both parties were married when the relationship began, the alleged promise to marry could not establish the required initial deceit on the facts before it.

¶ 29–30

The Court criticized the investigation for failing to consider the email correspondence and treated the addition of Section 376 IPC as unsupported by the material.

¶ 23–28