- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8303 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SWAGATH K.B., S/O. BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ADDRESS: KUVEMPUNAGARA, 2ND STAGE, SINGAPURA MAIN ROAD, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU, ADDRESS AS PER AADHAAR CARD NEAR BASAVANAGUDI TEMPLE, KOWDAHALLI VILLAGE, ANEMAHAL POST, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 577 552 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, STATE BY HASSAN EXTENSION P.S., HASSAN – 573 201, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001 2. SMT. SANDHYA. K.S., D/O. SHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 R/AT GOWRIKOPPALU VILLAGE, SIDDESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. PERMANENT ADDRESS AT RAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 213 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP SMT. PAVITHRA Y.D., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.CASE NO.10/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 69, 318(2), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 OF BNS 2023 AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(w))(i), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT BILL, 2015 IN CR.NO.233/2025 REGISTERED BY THE HASSAN EXTENSION P.S., AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE AT ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court calling in question the proceedings in Special Case No.10/2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 69, 318(2), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard Sri.Vijay Kumar T, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Pavithra Y.D., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: The 2nd respondent is the complainant, and the petitioner is the accused. The petitioner and the complainant are said to have met about 11 years prior to the registration of the complaint. The meeting develops into friendship, friendship blossoms into relationship and the relationship was sexual as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 well. After about 11 years i.e. on 19.10.2025, the subject complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent-complainant alleging that, for 11 long years, the petitioner has had physical relationship with the complainant on the promise of marriage and that promise having been breached has led the complainant to register the subject complaint. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the relationship of 11 long years was purely consensual and never on the pretext of promise of marriage. The other offences have sprung as an offshoot of the said offence. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant submits that the complainant is not interested to pursue the matter as they have settled the dispute amongst themselves and would leave the decision to the hands of the Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by respective learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass. The entire issue gets triggered from the registration of the complaint. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: UÉ ಆರಕ ೕಕರು ಬ ಾವ ೆ ೕಕರು K. R. ¥ÀÄgÀA, ºÁ¸À£À ಇಂದ ಇಂದ ಇಂದ ಇಂದ ¸ÀAzsÁå K. S. D/O. ±ÀAPÀgÀ, 35 ವಷ, ಪಷ ಾ ೆೆ¥Àê¸ïÖ, ೌ ೊಪ ಲು, "#ೆ$ೕಶ&ರ 'ೆಂಪ( ರೆ), *ಾಸನ. ಸ&ಂತ ಊರು: ಾಜನಹ12 ಾ3ಮ, ಆಲೂರು 5ಾಲೂಕು, *ಾಸನ 67ೆ8. 7483063663 9ಾನ:ೆ 9ಾನ:ೆ 9ಾನ:ೆ 9ಾನ:ೆ : ನನ ;ೕ7ೆ 7ೈಂ=ಕ>ಾ= ಬಳ"ೊಂಡು ೊ7ೆ Aೆದೆ *ಾBರುವ ಬೆC - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 9ಾನ:ೇ Dಾನು ;ೕಲEಂಡ FGಾಸದH8 ಾಯಂ >ಾ"Jಾ=ದು$ Dಾನು ಪಷ ಾೆ ೇದವಾ=ದು$ ನನ ತಂ#ೆ ಕೂH ೆಲಸ 9ಾಡು)ರು5ಾ)ೆ. Dಾನು ಸದ: ಅಮL ಕMNನ ಆಸ 5ೆ3ಯH8 ೆಪO P *ಾೆ ೆಲಸ 9ಾಡು)ರು5ೆ)ೕDೆ. ನನೆ ಇH8ೆ 11 ವಷಗಳ Rಂ#ೆ ಸಕ7ೇಶಪSರ 5ಾಲೂBನ ೌಡಹ12 ಾ3ಮದ AಾಲಕೃಷNನವರ ಮಗ ಾ&ಗU ಎಂಬ ಹುಡುಗ ಪಚಯ>ಾ=ದು$ ಆತ ನನ ಆಲೂನ ಮೆCೆ ಬಂದು ನನ ತಂ#ೆ 5ಾX *ಾಗೂ ಮDೆಯವೆಲ8 Dಾನು ಮL ಮಗಳನು F>ಾಹ>ಾಗು5ೆ)ೕDೆ ಎಂದು *ೇ1ೊಂಡು ಆಗ ನನ ತಂ#ೆ 5ಾX DಾವS ದHತರು ಮL ಸಂಬಂಧ ಸJಾಗುವSZಲ8 ಮL ಮDೆಯH8 ಒಪS ವSZಲ8 ಎಂದರೂ ಸಹ ೕವS ದHತ ಾJಾದರು ಮL ಮಗಳನು Dಾನು ಮದು>ೆJಾಗು5ೆ)ೕDೆ ಎಂದು *ೇ1ದು$ ನಂತರ ನನ ೊ5ೆ ಸHೆXಂದ ಇದು$ ನನೆ F>ಾಹ>ಾಗು5ೆ)ೕDೆ ಎಂಬ ಭರವೆ ಮೂ]" ಕGೆದ 10 ವಷಗ1ಂದಲೂ *ಾಸನದ ೌೊಪ HನH8 ಒಂದು ಮDೆಯನು ನನೆ Aಾ]ೆ ೊ]" ಮDೆೆ ಬಂದು ನನ ಇ^ೆ_ೆ Fರುದ$>ಾ= ನನೆ 7ೈಂ=ಕ B3`ಯH8 5ೊಡಗು)ದು$ ಈ ಬೆ Dಾನು 2018 ರH8 ನನನು ಎಲ8ರ ಸಮುLಖದH8 F>ಾಹ>ಾಗುವಂ5ೆ ಆಗ3ಹಪ]"#ಾಗ ನನ ೊ5ೆ ಏಾಂತದH8ರುವ dೕ'ೋಗಳe *ಾಗೂ F]fೕಗಳನು ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ಾಲ5ಾಣಗ1ೆ ಹhಟು ನ *ಾಗೂ ನ ಕುಟುಂಬದ 9ಾನ 5ೆೆಯು5ೆ)ೕDೆ, ೕನು Bೕಳe ಾಯವಳe, ನನು Dಾನು ಮದು>ೆJಾದೆ ನನ ಪ3jೆkೆ zsÀPÉÌ ಬರುತ)zÉ ಎಂದು ಅ>ಾಚ: ಶಬ$ಗ1ಂದ Aೈದು ನನೆ ೊ7ೆ Aೆದೆ *ಾBರು5ಾ)Dೆ. ನಂದ ºÉzÀj¹ 2018 jAzÀ 2025 £Éà K¦æ¯ï 7 gÀªÀgÉUÀÆ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 8,47,400/- ರೂಗಳನು ಬಲವಂತ>ಾ= 5ೆೆದುೊಂ]ರುvÁÛDೆ. *ಾಗೂ ಕGೆದ ವಷ ¸Áé ಎನುವ ಹುಡು=ಯನು ನನೆ 1ಯದ *ಾೆ F>ಾಹ>ಾ=ರು5ಾ)Dೆ. £É£Éß ZDಾಂಕ 14. 10.2024 ರಂದು ಾ3 11:10 ಸಮಯದH8 ಆತನ 6363909560 ನಂಬಂದ ನನ 7483063663 ನಂಬl ೆ ಾ( 9ಾ] 10 ಾFರ ಹಣ ೊಡುವಂ5ೆ ಬಲವಂತ 9ಾ]ರು5ಾ)Dೆ. ಆಗ Dಾನು ಈಾಗ7ೇ ಾಕಷು ಹಣವನು ನಂದ ಪ ೆದುೊಂ]ರು)ೕಯ ಇDಾದರೂ ನನ F]fೕ *ಾಗೂ dೕ'ೋಗಳನು ]Hೕm 9ಾ] ನಂದ ಪ ೆದುೊಂ]ರುವ 8,47,400/- ರೂಗಳe 15 ಾ3ಂ nನವನು >ಾಪP 9ಾಡುವಂ5ೆ ೇ1#ಾಗ ಹಣ >ಾಪP ೇ1ದೆ ನನು ೊ7ೆ 9ಾ] ಮೂ'ೆ ಕಟು5ೆ)ೕDೆ ಎಂದು ೊ7ೆ Aೆದೆ *ಾಕು)ರು5ಾ)Dೆ *ಾಗೂ ಕGೆದ 1 ವಷಗ1ಂದಲೂ ರಂತರ>ಾ= ನನೆ ೊ7ೆ Aೆದೆ *ಾಗೂ ಾ ಂದDೆ 9ಾಡು)ದು$ ನನೆ 9ಾನ"ಕ>ಾ= Bರುಕುಳ ೕಡು)#ಾ$ೆ. ಆದ$ಂದ 5ಾವSಗಳe ದಯ9ಾ] ;ೕಲEಂಡ ಾ&ಗತ Fರುದo ಾನೂನು ಕ3ಮ 5ೆೆದು ೊಂಡು ನಂದ ಬಲವಂತ>ಾ= ಪ ೆZರುವ ಹಣವನು - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 ನನೆ >ಾಪP ೊ]" ನನೆ ಆ=ರುವ ಅDಾ:ಯೆE Dಾ:ಯ ೊ]ಸAೇಾ= pಾ3qಸು5ೆ)ೕDೆ. ಾನೂನು ಕ3ಮ 5ೆೆದುೊಳ2Aೇೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಮನF 9ಾಡು5ೆ)ೕDೆ. 19/10/202025 ಇಂ ತಮL Frಾ&" *ಾಸನ ಸಂsಾ: K.S. The police after investigation file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet, as obtaining in column No.17, reads as follows: “7. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À PÀ®A 69, 352, 351(2) (3), 318(2)(4) ©J£ïJ¸ï-2023 eÉÆvÉUÉ PÀ®A 3(1) (qÀ§Æèå)(i), 3(2)(«), 3(2)(«J), J¸ï.¹/J¸ï.n wzÀÄÝ¥Àr PÁAiÉÄÝ-2015 ಸದ ಪ3ಕರಣದ ಾt-1 ರವರು ಪಷ ಾೆ (ಆZ ಕDಾಟಕ) ೇದವೆಂದು *ಾಗೂ ಸದ ಪ3ಕರಣದ ಾಲಂ ನಂಬl 12 ರH8,, ಕಂಡ ಆೋu ಾ&ಗU ೆ.h ರವರು ವಕEHಗ ಾೆ ೇದವೆಂದು #ಾಖ7ಾಗ1ಂದ 1ದು ಬಂZರುತ)#ೆ *ಾಗೂ ಸದಯವರುಗಳe ಸು9ಾರು 11 ವಷಗ1ಂದ ಪಚಯಸvಾ=ದು$, ಆೋuೆ ಾt-01 ರವರು ಪಷ ಾೆ ೇದವೆಂದು ಅವS ಇರುತ)#ೆ. *ಾಸನ ಉಪFxಾಗದ ಬ ಾವ ೆ yHೕP zಾ ೆಯ ಸರಹZ$ೆ ೇದ ಾt-02 ರವರ *ಾಸನ ನಗರದ ೌೊಪ Hನ ರFೕಂದ3 ನಗರದ ಮDೆಯH8 ಾಲಂ ನಂಬl 12 ರH8 ಕಂಡ ಆೋuಯು ಾt-01 ರವರನು ಮದು>ೆJಾಗು5ೆ)ೕDೆಂದು ಾt-01 ರವರನು ಮತು) ಅವರ ಮDೆಯವರನು ನಂh" ಾt-01 ರವರ ೊ5ೆಯH8, 2015 ಂದ 2024 Dೇ ಾHನವೆೆ ಸು9ಾರು 09 ವಷಗ1ಂದ ಒ{ೆ >ಾಸ>ಾ=ದು$, ಆೋuಯು ಾt-01 ರವರು ಪ.ಾೆ ೇದವರು ಎಂದು ೊ)ದ$ರೂ ಸಹ ಾt-01 ರವರ ಇ^ೆ_ೆ Fರುದo>ಾ= 7ೈಂ=ಕ B3`ಯH 5ೊಡಗು)ದು$, ಜೂO 2024Dೇ ಾHನH8 ಾt-01 ರವರು ಆೋuಯನು ಮದು>ೆJಾಗುವಂ5ೆ ೇ1#ಾಗ ಆೋuಯು ಾt-01 ರವರ ೊ5ೆ ಏಾಂತದH8ರುವ dೕ'ೋ ಮತು) Fೕ]fೕಗಳನು ಾ9ಾ6ಕ ಾಲ5ಾಣಗಳH8, *ಾB 9ಾನ 5ೆೆಯು5ೆ)ೕDೆ, ೕನು Bೕಳe ಾಯವಳe ನನು ಮದು>ೆJಾದೆ ನನ ಪ3jೆkೆ ದೆE ಬರುತ)#ೆ ಎಂದು ಅ>ಾಚ: ಶಬ$ಗ1ಂದ Aೈದು ಾಂದDೆ 9ಾ] ೊ7ೆ Aೆದೆ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 *ಾBದು$, ನಂತರ ಾt-01 ರವೆ 1ಸ#ೇ ಾt-03 ರವರನು ಮದು>ೆJಾ=ರು5ಾ)ೆ. ಈ Rಂ#ೆ ಆೋuಯು 5ಾನು ಾಲ 9ಾ]ೊಂ]ರುವS#ಾ= ಾt-01 ರವರನು ನಂh" ಾt- 01 ರವರ ಎP.h.ಐ Aಾ:ಂ} ಅೌಂm ನಂ- 41867918587 ೆ Hಂ} ಆ=ರುವ 7483063663 ~Aೈ( ನಂಬl ಂದ ಆೋuಯ 8088546878 ~Aೈ( ನಂಬೆ ಗೂಗ( pೇ/yೕO pೇ ಮು•ಾಂತರ 2,23,911/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß, ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀgÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨ÁåAPÀ CPËAmï £ÀA.3042500104783701 UÉ °APï DVgÀĪÀ 7483063663 ~Aೈ( ನಂಬl ಂದ ಆೋuಯ 8088546878 ~Aೈ( ನಂಬೆ ಗೂಗ( pೇ/yೕO pೇ ಮು•ಾಂತರ 5,64,626/- ರೂಗಳನು, ಾt-01 ರವರ ೆನಾ Aಾ:ಂ} ಅೌಂm ನಂ-05311078341 ೆ Hಂ} ಆ=ರುವ 7483063663 ~Aೈ( ನಂಬl ಂದ ಆೋuಯ 8088546878 ~Aೈ( ನಂಬೆ ಗೂಗ( pೇ/yೕO pೇ ಮು•ಾಂತರ 56,048/- ರೂಗಳನು, ಒಟು 9,90,425/- ಗಳನು ವಾವ ೆ 9ಾ]"ೊಂ]ದು$, ನಂತರ ZDಾಂಕ:-14/10/2025 ರಂದು ಾ3 11-10 ಗಂ'ೆ ಸಮಯದH8 ಆೋuಯು ಾt-03 ರವರ *ೆಸನH8ರುವ 6363909560 ~Aೈ( ನಂಬಂದ ಾt-01 ರವರ 7483063663 ~Aೈ( ನಂಬೆ ಕೆ 9ಾ] 10,000/- ರೂ ಹಣವನು ೊಡುವಂ5ೆ ಬಲವಂತ 9ಾ]ದು$, ಆಗ ಾt-01 ರವರು Dಾನು ಈಾಗ7ೇ ೊ{ರುವ ಹಣವನು >ಾಪP ೊಡು ಎಂದು ೇ1#ಾಗ ಆೋuಯು ಹಣವನು >ಾಪP ೇ1ದೆ ಾt-01 ರವರು ಆೋuಯ ೊ5ೆ ಏಾಂತದH8ರುವ dೕ'ೋ ಮತು) Fೕ]ೕfೕಗಳನು ಾ9ಾ6ಕ ಾಲ5ಾಣದH8 *ಾB 9ಾನ 5ೆೆಯು5ೆ)ೕDೆ, ನನು ೊ7ೆ 9ಾ] ಮೂ'ೆ ಕಟು5ೆ)ೕDೆ ಎಂದು ೊ7ೆ Aೆದೆ *ಾB ಸೂGೆ ಮುಂ ೆ ಮL ಅಪ ಂೆ ೕನು ಸJಾ= ಹು{ZೕJಾ ಎಂದು ಅ>ಾಚ: ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ Aೈದು ೕನು ಾ7ೋಯವಳe ಎಂದು eÁಂದDೆ 9ಾ]ರುವSದು *ಾಗೂ ಹಣವನು ಪ ೆದು ಾt-01 ರವರ ;ೕ7ೆ ರಂತರ #ೌಜನ: 9ಾ]ರುವSದು ತ•ೆXಂದ *ಾಗೂ ಾ€ಾsಾರಗ1ಂದ ದೃಡಪ{ರುತ3#ೆ. DzÀÝjAzÀ PÀ®A 69, 352, 351(2) (3), 318(2)(4) ©J£ïJ¸ï-2023 eÉÆvÉUÉ PÀ®A 3(1) (qÀ§Æèå)(i), 3(2)(«), 3(2)(«J), J¸ï.¹/J¸ï.n wzÀÄÝ¥Àr PÁAiÉÄÝ-2015 ೕ5ಾL ಆೋuಯ ;ೕ7ೆ ಅಪಾಧವS ಾhೕ5ಾ=ರುವSದಂದ ಘನ Dಾ:JಾಲಯೆE #ೋjಾೋಪ ಾ ಪತ3ವನು >ೇZ"ೊಂ]ರು5ೆ)." A perusal of the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet would indicate that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was for 11 long years and all those years, the acts committed between the two were purely - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 consensual. On such consensual acts, if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DHRUVARAM MURLIDHAR SONAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1, wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 18. In Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 775, this Court was considering a case where the prosecutrix, aged about 19 years, had given consent to sexual intercourse with the accused with whom she was deeply in love, on a promise that he would marry her on a later date. The prosecutrix continued to meet the accused and often had sexual intercourse and became pregnant. A complaint was lodged on failure of the accused to marry her. It was held that consent cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact. It was held thus : (SCC pp. 56-57, paras 21 & 23) “21. It therefore appears that the consensus of judicial opinion is in favour of the view that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact. A false promise is not a fact within the meaning of the Code. We are inclined to agree with this view, but we must add that there is no straitjacket formula for determining whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary, or whether it is given under a misconception of fact. In the ultimate analysis, the tests laid down by the courts provide at best guidance to the judicial mind while considering a question of consent, but the court must, in each case, 1(2019) 18 SCC 191 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances, before reaching a conclusion, because each case has its own peculiar facts which may have a bearing on the question whether the consent was voluntary, or was given under a misconception of fact. It must also weigh the evidence keeping in view the fact that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence, absence of consent being one of them. *** 23. Keeping in view the approach that the court must adopt in such cases, we shall now proceed to consider the evidence on record. In the instant case, the prosecutrix was a grown-up girl studying in a college. She was deeply in love with the appellant. She was, however, aware of the fact that since they belonged to different castes, marriage was not possible. In any event the proposal for their marriage was bound to be seriously opposed by their family members. She admits having told so to the appellant when he proposed to her the first time. She had sufficient intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting to. That is why she kept it a secret as long as she could. Despite this, she did not resist the overtures of the appellant, and in fact succumbed to them. She thus freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent. She must have known the consequences of the act, particularly when she was conscious of the fact that their marriage may not take place at all on account of caste considerations. All these circumstances lead us to the conclusion that she freely, voluntarily and consciously consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant, and her consent was not in consequence of any misconception of fact.” 19. In Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 88 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 253], the Court framed the following two questions relating to consent : (SCC p. 104, para 30) (1) Is it a case of passive submission in the face of psychological pressure exerted or allurements made by the accused or was it a conscious decision on the part of the prosecutrix knowing fully the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 nature and consequences of the act she was asked to indulge in? (2) Whether the tacit consent given by the prosecutrix was the result of a misconception created in her mind as to the intention of the accused to marry her? In this case, the girl lodged a complaint with the police stating that she and the accused were neighbours and they fell in love with each other. One day in February 1988, the accused forcibly raped her and later consoled her by saying that he would marry her. She succumbed to the entreaties of the accused to have sexual relations with him, on account of the promise made by him to marry her, and therefore continued to have sex on several occasions. After she became pregnant, she revealed the matter to her parents. Even thereafter, the intimacy continued to the knowledge of the parents and other relations who were under the impression that the accused would marry the girl, but the accused avoided marrying her and his father took him out of the village to thwart the bid to marry. The efforts made by the father of the girl to establish the marital tie failed. Therefore, she was constrained to file the complaint after waiting for some time. 20. With this factual background, the Court held that the girl had taken a conscious decision, after active application of mind to the events that had transpired. It was further held that at best, it is a case of breach of promise to marry rather than a case of false promise to marry, for which the accused is prima facie accountable for damages under civil law. It was held thus: (Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 8 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 253], SCC p. 106, para 35) “35. The remaining question is whether on the basis of the evidence on record, it is reasonably possible to hold that the accused with the fraudulent intention of inducing her to sexual intercourse, made a - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 false promise to marry. We have no doubt that the accused did hold out the promise to marry her and that was the predominant reason for the victim girl to agree to the sexual intimacy with him. PW 12 was also too keen to marry him as she said so specifically. But we find no evidence which gives rise to an inference beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had no intention to marry her at all from the inception and that the promise he made was false to his knowledge. No circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence establish this fact. On the other hand, the statement of PW 12 that “later on”, the accused became ready to marry her but his father and others took him away from the village would indicate that the accused might have been prompted by a genuine intention to marry which did not materialise on account of the pressure exerted by his family elders. It seems to be a case of breach of promise to marry rather than a case of false promise to marry. On this aspect also, the observations of this Court in Uday case [Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 775] at para 24 come to the aid of the appellant.” 21. In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 660] , the Court has drawn a distinction between rape and consensual sex. This is a case of a prosecutrix aged 19 years at the time of the incident. She had an inclination towards the accused. The accused had been giving her assurances of the fact that he would get married to her. The prosecutrix, therefore, left her home voluntarily and of her own free will to go with the accused to get married to him. She called the accused on a phone number given to her by him, to ask him why he had not met her at the place that had been pre-decided by them. She also waited for him for a long time, and when he finally arrived, she went with him to a place called Karna Lake where they indulged in sexual intercourse. She did not raise any objection at that stage and made no complaints to anyone. Thereafter, she went to Kurukshetra with the accused, where she lived with his relatives. Here too, the prosecutrix voluntarily became intimate with the accused. She then, for some reason, went to live in the hostel at Kurukshetra University illegally, and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 once again came into contact with the accused at Birla Mandir there. Thereafter, she even proceeded with the accused to the old bus-stand in Kurukshetra, to leave for Ambala so that the two of them could get married at the court in Ambala. At the bus station, the accused was arrested by the police. The Court held that the physical relationship between the parties had clearly developed with the consent of the prosecutrix as there was neither a case of any resistance nor had she raised any complaint anywhere at any time, despite the fact that she had been living with the accused for several days and had travelled with him from one place to another. The Court further held that it is not possible to apprehend the circumstances in which a charge of deceit/rape can be levelled against the accused. 22. Recently, this Court, in Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka [Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 18 SCC 204] , disposed of on 6-4-2018, has observed that it is difficult to hold that sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship which has continued for eight years is “rape”, especially in the face of the complainant's own allegation that they lived together as man and wife. It was held as under: (Shivashankar case [Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 18 SCC 204] , SCC p. 205, para 4) “4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to sustain the charges levelled against the appellant who may have possibly, made a false promise of marriage to the complainant. It is, however, difficult to hold sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship which has continued for eight years, as “rape” especially in the face of the complainant's own allegation that they lived together as man and wife.” 23. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC. 24. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the appellant was serving as a Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre and the complainant was working as an Assistant Nurse in the same health centre and that she is a widow. It was alleged by her that the appellant informed her that he is a married man and that he has differences with his wife. Admittedly, they belong to different communities. It is also alleged that the accused/appellant needed a month's time to get their marriage registered. The complainant further states that she had fallen in love with the appellant and that she needed a companion as she was a widow. She has specifically stated that “as I was also a widow and I was also in need of a companion, I agreed to his proposal and since then we were having love affair and accordingly we started residing together. We used to reside sometimes at my home whereas sometimes at his home”. Thus, they were living together, sometimes at her house and sometimes at the residence of the appellant. They were in a relationship with each other for quite some time and enjoyed each other's company. It is also clear that they had been living as such for quite some time together. When she came to know that the appellant had married some other woman, she lodged the complaint. It is not her case that the complainant has forcibly raped her. She had taken a conscious decision after active application of mind to the things - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29323 CRL.P No. 8303 of 2026 that had happened. It is not a case of a passive submission in the face of any psychological pressure exerted and there was a tacit consent and the tacit consent given by her was not the result of a misconception created in her mind. We are of the view that, even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not make out a case against the appellant. We are also of the view that since the complainant has failed to prima facie show the commission of rape, the complaint registered under Section 376(2)(b) cannot be sustained.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court and the facts obtaining in the case at hand, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Criminal Petition is allowed. [II] Proceedings in Spl. Case No.10/2026 pending before I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, stand quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC/ List No.: 4 Sl No.: 6