Karnataka HC Quashes Rape Case Based On Withdrawal Of Consent During Act, Terms Prosecution An Abuse Of Process [Read Order]

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a 23-year-old man accused of rape after a woman claimed she had withdrawn consent during a consensual sexual encounter in a hotel room.

The Court held that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not constitute an offence of rape under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and that allowing the case to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna pronounced the order on October 25, 2025, while allowing Writ Petition No. 31144 of 2024 (GM-RES) filed by Sampras Anthony seeking quashing of the FIR registered at Konanakunte Police Station, Bengaluru, and the subsequent charge-sheet in C.C. No. 34011 of 2024 pending before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

The Court noted that the petitioner and the complainant met through the dating app Bumble, and continued communicating over Instagram for several months before meeting in person on August 11, 2024. After dining together, they checked into an OYO hotel where, according to the complaint, the woman initially consented to physical intimacy but later withdrew consent during the act. She lodged a complaint two days later, leading to the petitioner’s arrest and the filing of a charge-sheet for rape.

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the material on record, including social-media communications produced by the petitioner, indicated a consensual relationship. He found that the investigation had “deliberately ignored” relevant chats that reflected the voluntary nature of the interaction. Citing Supreme Court precedents in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191 and Tilak Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2016) 4 SCC 140, the Court reiterated the distinction between rape and consensual sex arising from mutual intimacy.

The Court held that criminal law could not be invoked to criminalize consensual acts between adults merely because one party later experienced regret. “A relationship born of mutual volition, even if it founders in disappointment, cannot, save in the clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under the criminal law,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.

Holding that continuation of the trial would amount to “a ritualistic procession towards miscarriage of justice,” the Court quashed the FIR in Crime No. 306 of 2024 and all consequential proceedings.

[Read Order]