Consensual Acts Between Accused & Victim For Years Together Cannot Be Projected As Offence U/S 69 BNS: Karnataka High Court
The Court called the case a “classic illustration of abuse and misuse” of Section 69; Section 115 BNS and SC/ST Act charges also failed; quashed proceedings against the doctor.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of sexual intercourse by deceitful means under Section 69 of the BNS. It held that consensual acts between an accused and a complainant over several years cannot be presented as ingredients of the offence. A relationship turning sour or breaking, the Court said, does not make the man guilty under Section 69.
The Court described the case as a classic illustration of the misuse of Section 69, which it said is now mushrooming in courts. It found that the charges under Section 115(2) of the BNS and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also could not stand, and exercised its power under Section 528 of the BNSS.
A Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “…the subject case becomes a classic illustration of abuse and misuse of Section 69 of the BNS which are now mushrooming in Courts. All consensual acts between the accused and the victim for years together are now projected to become ingredients of Section 69. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of the BNSS and obliterate the proceedings to save it from becoming an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice”.
Senior Advocate G.L. Vishwanath appeared for the petitioner and K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP appeared for the respondent.
The complainant and the petitioner, both doctors, met in 2017 and were in a relationship from June 2019 to November 2023. It resumed in September 2024 and continued until the complaint of March 15, 2025. She alleged that the petitioner had sexual relations on a promise of marriage and backed out because she belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
After a charge sheet dated May 13, 2025, the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, took cognizance. The petitioner challenged this. The State argued that, with the charge sheet filed, the Court should relegate him to a revision or a full trial.
The Court held that a man cannot have a relationship by deceitful means with a woman for years. It said Section 69 requires a promise made with no intention of fulfilling it. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat, along with Dhruvaram Sonar, Samadhan and Pramod Kumar Navratna.
On Section 115 BNS, it found no allegation of hurt, and the medico-legal report showed no injuries. On Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act, it held that consensual acts for seven years cannot be treated as acts without consent. It added that the marriage not taking place on account of caste could not be laid against the petitioner.
“The Apex Court in PRAMOD KUMAR NAVRATNA supra observes that the essential ingredient to constitute the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC for the promise of marriage is that the promise must be made with the intention of not fulfilling it at the very outset. It is reiterated that a consensual relationship, which turns sour would not amount to a false promise of marriage”, the Bench said.
Cause Title: Dr. Ramdas @ Ramdas Patil v. State of Karnataka & Anr. Criminal Petition No.10701 Of 2025
Appearances:
Petitioner: G.L. Vishwanath, Senior Advocate, Manasa M.B., Advocate.
Respondent: K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP, Shantkumar N., Advocate.