- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3990 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. ABHISHEK CHAUHAN S/O.SOMPAL SINGH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT AT CHAUHAN, PUSHP VIHAR, AVAS VIKAS COLONY, CHANDAUSI, CHANDAUSI SAMBHAL, UTTAR PRADESH - 20241. 2. RAHUL SINGH, S/O. SOMPAL SINGH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHAUHAN, SEEKRI GATE, POLICE CHOWKI, CHANDAUSI, MORADABAD, UTTAR PRADESH - 202 412. PERMANENT RESIDENT AT CHAUHAN, PUSHP VIHAR, AVAS VIKAS COLONY, CHANDAUSI, CHANDAUSI SAMBHAL, UTTAR PRADESH - 202 412. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHARATH B, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR, BOMMANHALLI POLICE STATION, REP BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. PINKI SHAW, D/O NANDALAL SHAW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O NO. 26, 3RD FLOOR, PRAKASH REDDY BUILDING PAPANNA REDDY LAYOUT, GARVEBAVIPALYA, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RISHAB TRAKROO, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0079/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (CJM), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 69, 351(2) READ WITH 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS) 2023 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.79/2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, inter alia. 2. Heard Sri. Bharath B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Rishab Trakroo, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The second respondent is the complainant. The accused No.1 and the complainant meet in the year 2024 and developed friendship, friendship blossoms into relationship, which was physical, as well. The relationship would travel through two years, up to 2026, on which day the complainant registers the subject complaint for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner on registration of the crime has approached this Court on the subject petition. This Court, owing to the fact that - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 the acts between the two were consensual for a period of two years, had granted an interim order of stay on 15.04.2026, which is in subsistence even today. During the subsistence of the petition, it transpires that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have entered into a settlement and filed a affidavit of such settlement. The affidavits reads as follows: "JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONERS We, Abhishek Chauhan, S/o. Sompal Singh, aged about 26 years, presently residing at Shri Vasavi P.G., Shantipura Main Road, Electronic City, Phase-II, Bengaluru - 560100 and permanently residing at, Pushp Vihar, Avas Vikas Colony, Chandausi, Sambhal District, Uttar Pradesh - 202412, and Rahul Singh, S/o. Sompal Singh, aged about 38 years, presently residing at, Seekri Gate, Police Chowki, Chandausi, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-202412 and permanently residing at, Pushp Vihar, Avas Vikas Colony Chandausi, Sambhal District, Uttar Pradesh 202412 being the Petitioners in the above criminal petition, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. We submit that we are the Petitioners in the above Criminal Petition and are well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, we are swearing to this Joint Affidavit. 2. We submit that during the pendency of the above Criminal Petition, with the intervention of elders, relatives and well-wishers, the dispute between ourselves and Respondent No.2 has been amicably settled. 3. We further submit that the settlement arrived at between ourselves and Respondent No.2 has been fully acted upon and all the terms and conditions of the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 settlement have been complied with to the satisfaction of Respondent No.2. 4. We further submit that Respondent No.2 has no objection for allowing the above Criminal Petition and for quashing the FIR in Crime No.0079/2026 and all consequential proceedings pending against us. 5. We submit that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily and out of our own free will without any force, coercion, threat or undue influence from any person whatsoever. 6. We further submit that we are personally present before this Hon'ble Court and affirm that the settlement is genuine. We respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise and allow the Criminal Petition in the interest of justice and equity. WHEREFORE, we respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take this Joint Affidavit on record and pass appropriate orders in terms of the Joint Memo, in the interest of justice and equity. AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT No.2 I, Pinki Shaw, D/o. Nandalal Shaw, aged about 26 years, residing at No.26, 3rd Floor, Prakash Reddy Building, Papanna Reddy Layout, Garvebhavipalya, Bengaluru - 560068, Respondent No.2 in the above Criminal Petition, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I submit that I am the Respondent No.2/Complainant in the above Criminal Petition and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, I am swearing to this affidavit. 2. I submit that during the pendency of the above Criminal Petition, with the intervention of elders, relatives and well-wishers, the disputes and differences between myself and the Petitioners have been amicably settled. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 3. I further submit that the settlement arrived at between myself and the Petitioners no 1 and 2 has been fully acted upon and I am satisfied with the same. I have no surviving claim or grievance against the Petitioners in respect of the subject matter of the present case. 4. I further submit that I have entered into the settlement voluntarily, out of my own free will, without any force, coercion, threat or undue influence from any person. 5. I further submit that I have no objection if this Hon'ble Court allows the above Criminal Petition and quashes the FIR in Crime No.0079/2026 registered by Bommanahalli Police Station and all consequential proceedings pending against the Petitioners. 6. I further submit that I am personally present before this Hon'ble Court and I confirm that I have entered into the compromise voluntarily and I respectfully request this Hon'ble Court to record the compromise and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. WHEREFORE, I respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take this affidavit on record, record the compromise and allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity." The issue now would be whether the offence is being even met for this Court to close the proceedings on the acceptance of the affidavits. 4. The complaint so registered against the petitioner reads as follows: "To Date: 22/02/2026 The Officer-In-Charge/ - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 Station House Officer Bommanahalli Police Station Bengaluru, Karnataka From: Pinki Shaw, Daughter of Nand Lal Shaw, 26 years old No. 26, Prakash Reddy Building, 3rd Floor, pappamareddy layout, Garebhavipally, Bengaluru-560068 Phone Numbers:8088938795 Email: misspinkishaw256@gmail.com 8617275746 Subject - Complaint against my boy-friend Abhishek Chauhan for cheating and exploiting me on the pretext of marriage and getting threatening threats from his brother (Rahul Singh Chauhan) I have been residing at the above address for 2 years. And have been working as a Sales Associate in finlight Research Private Limited Company, B.T.M Layout. My own address is 202, Doharia Peyara Bagan, District Kolkata West, Bengal State. I cam to Bangalore in March 2024 in search of a job. After coming to Bangalore, I first lived in Bellandur and worked in Infinity Learn Company for four months. Then I left that job and joined Spec Research Company in August 2024. While I was working in Spec Research Company, I met Abhishek Chauhan, who worked in the TCS. In 2025 feb, we exchanged ours numbers. Initially we were good friends. Gradually Abhishek Chauhan proposed to me that he loved me. Tehn Abhishek used to tell me I also accepted his love. Then Abhishek promised to marry me. Then Abhishek used to take me to malls and hotels often. Then In July 2025. I rented a flat in my name at the address of House No. 26, 3rd Floor, Prakash Reddy Building, Pappanna Reddy Layout, Garebhavipalya, Bangalore City - 560068. I was living in the house alone. I trusted Abhishek completely because he always showed me much care and love and assured me that Abhishek - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 would often came to my flat and stay in our flat for about a week. In this way while Abhishek coming and going to my house in the first week of July 2025, Abhishek came to me and assured me that he would marry me and developed physical contact with me. Evenafter that, Abhishek used to come to my flat and make me believe that he would marry me and would often have physical contact with me. then I told my family that I was in love with Abhishek and that we were going to get married. My family also agreed to that my family also agreed. Then I told Abhishek that I had arranged our marriage at house and you should agree with your family. Abhishek said that I still need to become financially stable and then I will marry you I also agreed to that. After that, the way Abhishek behaved with me was different. I kept observing Abhishek behaviour until November 2025. I come to know that Abhishek was acting with me that he loved me and wanted to marry me like someone who loved me or wanted to marry me. In this case on 10/11/2025, Abhishek came to my house and had physical contact with me at night. The next day I asked Abhishek to marry me, he did not respond properly. Then On 13/11/2025, I asked Abhishek again to marry me, but he said that I do not want to marry you. Let's break up. Then said that you are going to marry me and now you are not getting married this is okay I told all our family about both of us and told them not to cheat on me to this Abhishek said " I will not marry you and left my house. After that, I tried to convince Abhishek, several times but he kept telling me he would not marry and that if I asked him about it again and again he will blocked me thus brother Rahul Singh treated me that if Abhishek did not stay away from him. So he pretend to love me convinced me that you would marry me and physical contact with me several times now he will not marry me. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 I have asked him to marry me Abhishek brother has giving me threatened me that he will post our pic together on social media and spread slender about me and apart of this his brother will kidnap 4 days this brother is Rahul Singh Phone number - 9969606464 I request your support and justice in this matter. Thank you" A perusal at the complaint would indicate narration of the events that have happened for two years prior to the registration of the complaint, which were all on consensus. In that light, permitting investigation even in the case at hand would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, I reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1230. 5. The Apex Court in the case of AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL has held as follows: "2. This Appeal by special leave is directed against the Impugned Order dt. 28.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 whereby the Petition u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the Criminal Case C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 for offences punishable u/s 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara qua the Appellant was dismissed. Vide an - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 amendment to the Petition, the Appellant also challenged the chargesheet filed on 26.09.2023 and the proceedings in RCC no. 378/2023 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad. 3. The Criminal Case C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 at Police Station Karad Taluka, Dist. Satara was registered at the behest of a Complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 alleging that during the period 08.06.2022 till 08.07.2023, the Appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on the false assurance of marriage. The Complainant/Respondent no. 2 who had been previously married, had obtained Khulanama from her ex-husband and had been residing with her 4-year-old son at her parental home in Kalegaon, Karkad Dist since 2021; while the Appellant, a 23-year-old student of Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) at Krishna College of Agriculture, Rethre BK, Taluka Karad District, Satara was residing as a tenant next door, with three other men since 25.05.2022. The sequence of events as recorded in the FIR 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 are as under: 3.1 The parties became acquainted on 08.06.2022, which turned into a friendship and they soon began interacting more frequently. The relationship blossomed into love, but it is stated that the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 repeatedly denied to make physical relations with the Appellant. 3.2 It is alleged the case of the Complainant that in July 2022, the Appellant had entered the house of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 at night, and said that once she obtains divorce from her husband, the Appellant would instantly marry her and on this pretext had sexual intercourse with her, despite her denial. It is - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 stated that since then, the parties continued meeting outside and having meals together; however later on 21.09.2022 on the occasion of the Appellant's birthday, when the Complainant/Respondent had visited the Rajyog Lounge, Varunji Phata, Airport Karad, the Appellant again had sexual intercourse with her on the assurance of marriage. Thereafter, the Appellant allegedly borrowed money from the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 on various occasions & used her car, Hyundai Verna No. MH-12-HZ-9559 for his personal use. 3.3 In January 2023, the parties visited Pushkar Lodge, Ogalewadi, Karad, where the Appellant told the Complainant that he had not informed his family about their relationship, however, he would marry her once her divorce was finalized. Allegedly, despite her objection, the Appellant on this assurance of marriage, again had sexual intercourse with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 and there is a specific allegation that he committed unnatural sex with her. It is alleged that soon thereafter, the Appellant had reduced his interactions with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2, did not answer her phone calls and left for his hometown at Ahmednagar. 3.4 On 08.07.2023, the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 visited his native village in Ahmednagar and met his parents and other relatives, who refused to marry the Appellant with Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as they belonged to different religions. Allegedly, when the Complainant refused to leave, the parents of the Appellant, his brother and his uncle pushed her aside by beating and abusing her. The Complaint dt. 31.07.2023 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 was registered after 23 days of the alleged incident at PS Taluka Karad, Dist. Satara. 4. The Appellant on the other hand, has narrated the sequence differently, stating that during the alleged period of incidence, when he had been assigned a program at Village Kalegaon, Tq. Karad. Dist. Satara for five months, he became acquainted with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as his neighbor. The Appellant has denied the allegations of having forced sexual intercourse with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 on the assurance of marriage, and stated that it was in-fact the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 who had approached him with proposals and would regularly visit his college, which even led to grievances raised with the college faculty. Vide a written Complaint dt. 24.07.2023 with the Police Inspector, Karad Taluka PS Satara, the father of the Appellant has alleged that the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 had been harassing his son & had taken him to different lodges against his will and had threatened to implicate him in false rape cases, if he refused to marry her. A Non- Cognizable Offence Information Report (NCR)1 dt. 24.07.2023 had been registered pursuant to a threatening phone call received on 22.07.2023 at 10 : 30 pm in the night, on the Appellant's mobile number from another mobile, allegedly threatening that she will beat him by entering his house and destroy his family. 5. Pursuant thereto that the FIR had been maliciously registered against him and that no prima-facie case u/s 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506 IPC could be made out against him, the Appellant sought anticipatory bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, which was granted vide Order dt. 23.08.2023. The Additional Sessions Judge, while granting bail to the Appellant made the following remarks: - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 “9. In this backdrop the point cannot be side lined that the victim is matured to understand the significance and morality to which she is consenting. The prosecutrix who is major lady gives consent even on any of the aforesaid assumption and she had sexual intercourse with applicant/accused, she will be under all circumstances and in all respect considered to be a consenting party. This coupled with the fact that day after day, week after week and month after month, this arrangement continued until the day of reckoning when she complained that promise of marriage is not fulfill or that all this while she was being fedup of this false assurance. Whatever be the worth of promise or assurance, in law informant is deemed to have given consent on her own accord as far as sexual intercourse is concerned. When two young male and female having attained the age of discretion get attracted to each other and due to emotional and passionate attachment succumbed to temptation of sexual relationship then such mental and voluntary participation does not come in the way of granting bail. Hence, accused is entitled for pre-arrest bail. The apprehension shown by prosecution will be safeguarded by imposing conditions…….” 6. The Appellant then preferred Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 seeking quashing of the C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 & the proceedings emanating therefrom before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, and in the meanwhile, the investigation culminated into a charge- sheet 26.09.2023 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad. 7. The learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the High Court has erred in dismissing the Petition u/s 482 CrPC insofar as the criminal proceedings in the present case constitute an abuse of process of law, and is well within the categories as contemplated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2. It is argued that the allegations of forcible sexual assault and unnatural sex are - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 highly improbable as there is no medical evidence to adduce that forcible sexual assault and unnatural sex had been committed upon the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 and that allegations of rape are unsustainable as the relationship between the parties being two mature adults was purely consensual in nature. It is argued that the captioned FIR is registered after a delay of 13 months from the date of the alleged incident, which is considerable to cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant/Respondent no. 2, especially when she sustained her relationship with the Appellant since the alleged incident. 8. Having heard both sides in this case and after carefully considering the material on record, the following attributes come to the fore: (a) Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as a true and correct depiction of circumstances, it does not appear from the record that the consent of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 was obtained against her will and merely on an assurance to marry. The Appellant and the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 were acquainted since 08.06.2022, and she herself admits that they interacted frequently and fell in love. The Complainant/Respondent no. 2 engaged in a physical relationship alleging that the Appellant had done so without her consent, however she not only sustained her relationship for over 12 months, but continued to visit him in lodges on two separate occasions. The narrative of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 does not corroborate with her conduct. - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 (b) The consent of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as defined under section 90 IPC also cannot be said to have been obtained under a misconception of fact. There is no material to substantiate “inducement or misrepresentation” on the part of the Appellant to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise. Investigation has also revealed that the Khulanama, was executed on 29.12.2022 which the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 had obtained from her ex-husband. During this time, the parties were already in a relationship and the alleged incident had already taken place. It is inconceivable that the Complainant had engaged in a physical relationship with the Appellant, on the assurance of marriage, while she was already married to someone else. Even otherwise, such promise to begin with was illegal and unenforceable qua the Appellant. (c) There is no evidence of coercion or threat of injury to the Complainant/Respondent no. 2, to attract an offence under section 506 IPC. It is improbable that there was any threat caused to the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 by the Appellant when all along the relationship was cordial, and it was only when the Appellant graduated and left for his hometown to Ahmednagar, the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 became agitated. We also cannot ignore the conduct of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 in visiting the native village of the Appellant without any intimation, which is also unacceptable and reflects the agitated and unnerved state of mind of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2. For the same reason, the criminal prosecution against the - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 Appellant herein is probably with an underlying motive and disgruntled state of mind. (d) There is also no reasonable possibility that the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 or any woman being married before and having a child of four years, would continue to be deceived by the Appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with an individual who has sexually assaulted and exploited her. 9. In our considered view, this is also 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 machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly3 to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC. 10. As demonstrated hereinabove, the ingredients of the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC are not established. The present case squarely falls under categories enumerated in Para 102(5) & 102(7) as identified by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) for the exercise of powers u/s 482 CrPC by the High Court so as to prevent the abuse of process of law. Para 102 reads as under: “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 - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 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. (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. - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 (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 wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 11. Taking into consideration that the Appellant is just 25 years of age, and has a lifetime ahead of him, it would be in the interest of justice that he does not suffer an impending trial and, therefore, the proceedings emanating from C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 are quashed at this stage itself. 12. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed and the Impugned Order dt. 28.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 is set aside. Accordingly, C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara and proceedings emanating therefrom in RCC no. 378/2023 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad are - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182222026 NC: 2026:KHC:41614 CRL.P No. 3990 of 2026 quashed, and Appellant is discharged. Bail bonds, if any, also stand cancelled." In the light of the said judgment, when the crime itself cannot be permitted to be investigated into, in that light, I deem it appropriate to accept the aforesaid affidavits and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The investigation in crime No.79/2026 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Nrupathunga Raod, Bangalore City stands quashed. Sd/- M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6