Section 69 BNS is not attracted against a woman accused.

The petitioner, accused No. 2, is the wife of accused No. 1.

The complainant alleged that accused No. 1 promised to marry her and had a physical relationship with her, and that the accused took and shared her photographs and videos without her consent and attempted to blackmail her.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR in Crime No. 185/2026, registered for offences under Sections 69, 308(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The State opposed quashing, submitting that investigation had yielded material indicating the petitioner transmitted the images and videos.

The High Court considered the petition while investigation remained ongoing.

Whether the allegations disclosed an offence under Section 69 of the BNS against the petitioner, who was accused No. 2 and a woman.

Whether the FIR and complaint should be quashed as against the petitioner in respect of the other alleged offences, including those concerning the alleged unauthorised transfer of the complainant’s images.

The Court considered Section 69 of the BNS, which concerns sexual intercourse obtained through specified deceitful means, and held that it could not be attracted against this petitioner on the allegations presented, including because she was a woman and the complaint did not attribute the relevant conduct to her.

It also considered the remaining alleged offences under Sections 308(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 66E and 67A of the IT Act.

The Court did not set out a separate statutory test or rely on cited precedents for those offences; it held that the alleged transfer of images required investigation and that further action should depend on its findings.

The Court found that the complaint did not allege conduct by the petitioner capable of attracting Section 69 of the BNS, so that allegation could be quashed as against her.

However, the materials disclosed an allegation that the complainant’s photographs had been transferred without her consent, and the State reported that recovered material indicated the petitioner may have transmitted them.

The petitioner’s contention that another person may have misused her phone raised a factual question requiring investigation; the Court therefore declined to terminate the proceedings on the remaining allegations at this stage.

Investigation into the other alleged offences was permitted to continue, with the investigating agency to file an appropriate report based on its findings.

The Court kept the petitioner’s other contentions open and clarified that its observations did not reflect on the allegations against accused No. 1, who was not a party to the petition.