- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9365 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12149 OF 2022 IN CRL.P No. 9365/2023 BETWEEN: MR ARVIND R AGED ABOUT 25 YRS HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS G-2, CAMPBELL REGENCY, NO. 66/1, 3RD CROSS, CHARLES CAMPBELL ROAD, COX TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PARVEEZ AHAMED M R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY-560021. REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01 2. PRIYANKA M, D/O. D MATHEW DENNIS, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, NO. 35, 6TH CROSS, SRIRAMPURAM, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 BANGALORE - 560 021 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.AYANTIKA MONDAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED IN CR.NO.73/2022 OF SRIRAMPURAM P.S., UNDER SEC.417,420,376,34 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING BEFORE 39TH A.C.M.M, BENGALURU. IN CRL.P NO. 12149/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JYOTHI LAKSHMI W/O RAVICHANDER YOGANAT AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. RAVICHANDER YOGANATHAN S/O YOGANATHAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS THE PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT G-2, CAMPBELL REGENCY NO.66/1, 3RD CROSS CHARLES CAMPBELL ROAD COX TOWN, BANGALORE-560005. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PARVEEZ AHAMED M R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 REP BY ITS S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-01. 2. PRIYANKA M D/O D MATHEW DENNIS MAJOR BY AGE, NO.35, 6TH CROSS, SRIRAMPURAM BANGALORE-560021. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SMT.AYANTIKA MONDAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.73/2022 OF SRIRAMPURAM P.S., U/S 417,420,376,34 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING BEFORE 39TH ACMM, BANGALORE. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI COMMON ORDER Petitioner in Crl.P.No.9365/2023 is accused No.1. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.12149/2022 are accused Nos.2 and 3. They have filed these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them in Cr.No.73/2022 on the file of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. In support of the petition, accused Nos.1 to 3 have contended that the allegations made in the complaint are false, frivolous and does not merit consideration. Accused Nos.2 and 3 had no information about the relationship between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Such being the case, they are falsely implicated. Respondent No.2 is an adult and knowing fully well about the nature of relationship, she has given her consent. When accused No.1 went to Canada for studies, to stall his progress, respondent No.2 has given false complaint. She was in the habit of breaking the relationship on and off and moving away from accused No.1. Her behaviour was not acceptable to accused No.1. None of the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 r/w - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 Section 34 of IPC are attracted. The concerned police without verifying the contents of the complaint have mechanically registered the case. 3.1 So far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they have further contended that they are falsely implicated to pressurize accused No.1. Complainant and accused No.1 are major and consenting parties and accused Nos.2 and 3 have nothing to do with them. Continuation of the criminal proceesings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 4. In support of his arguments learned counsel representing petitioners has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Prashant Vs. State of NCT Delhi (Prashant)1 (ii) Lalu Yadav Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (Lalu Yadav)2 (iii) Satish Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Satish)3 1 2024 INSC 879 2 2024 INSC 782 3 Crl.P.No.6419/2024 Dt:14.11.2024 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 (iv) Jaspal Singh Kaural Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.(Jaspal Singh Kaural)4 (v) Biswajyothi Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (Biswajyothi Chatterjee)5 5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State and learned counsel representing respondent No.2 would submit that respondent No.2 has filed complaint alleging that she was in relationship with accused No.1. Both of them studied at Cathedral PU college during 2013-2015. Respondent No.2 fell in love with accused No.1 during 2016. Due to misunderstanding and family pressure, they broke up in 2017. Again during 2018, they continued their relationship. Despite objection from accused Nos.2 and 3 who are his parents, accused No.1 went ahead with his relationship and promised to marry her after his Masters in Canada and after convincing his parents. In this background, they entered into physical relationship for about 4-5 years. Accused No.1 has exploited her physically 4 2025 INSC 457 5 2025 INSC 458 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 and mentally. Matter require full fledged trial and pray to dismiss the petitions. 6. In support of his arguments learned counsel representing respondent No.2 has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri Vs. State of A.P. (Sanapareddy)6 (ii) State of U.P. Vs. Naushad (Naushad)7 (iii) State of M.P Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Laxmi Narayan)8 (iv) Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Anurag Soni)9 7. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and perused the record. 8. As evident from the complaint, when the complaint was filed, respondent No.2 was aged 25 years. In the complaint, she has stated that she and accused 6 (2007) 13 SCC 165 7 (2013) 16 SCC 651 8 (2019) 5 SCC 688 9 (2019) 12 SCC 1 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 No.1 fell in love with each other during 2016 when she was an adult. However, in 2017 they broke up for a period of one year, due to mis-understanding between them. Accused No.1 who spoke with the parents of respondent No.2 about their marriage, promised that he would convince his parents after his Masters in Canada. For a long period of 4-5 years, they were in physical relationship. It is stated in the complaint that on 02.05.2022, while they were shopping, they had a small argument after which accused No.1 left leaving his motorcycle. 9. Thus, the very complaint averment indicate that accused No.1 and respondent No.2 being adults were into physical relationship with one another since 4–5 years. In the complaint itself, the respondent No.2 has stated that accused promised to marry her after he completes his Masters at Canada and that he would also convince his parents about their marriage. Thus, according to the complaint averments itself, accused No.1 never refused to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 marry the respondent No.2 and on the other hand, he wanted to complete his Masters at Canada. After the quarrel that took place on 02.05.2022, respondent No.2 apprehending that accused No.1 may not marry her after he go to Canada for his studies, she has urged the concerned police to take action against accused No.1 or else he would leave to Canada. 10. When accused No.1 is not having any objections to marry respondent No.2 and they are in relationship since 4–5 years and when accused Nos.2 and 3 are not able to prevent the same, question of they being the parents of accused No.1, opposing their marriage would not arise. It appears to pressurize accused No.1, the respondent has unnecessarily added accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused No.1 and respondent No.2 being consenting adults are in a relationship with each other. 11. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Amol - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 Bhagwan Nehul)10, when two consenting adults are into a physical relationship, knowing the consequence of such relation, it is not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal missionary of the State. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it fell under category para 102 ( 5 ) & (7) of decision in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (Bhajan Lal)11 “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 10 2025 SCC online SC 1230 11 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 12. The facts and circumstances of the present case are also similar to the one refer to the above decision and consequently para 102 (5) and (7) of Bhajan Lal are applicable to the present case also. 13. Thus from the above decision discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No.2 has filed the complaint with a malafide intention to prevent accused No.1 from going to Canada without marrying her and she has implicated accused Nos.2 and 3 to force accused No.1. Certainly continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such liable to be quashed and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Crl.P.No.9365/2022 filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33035 CRL.P No. 9365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12149 of 2022 Crl.P.No.12149/2022 filed by petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C are hereby allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings in Cr.No.73/2022 on the file of XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 r/w Section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61