<p>Bengaluru: A relationship born of mutual volition, even if it's founders are disappointed, cannot, save in clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under the criminal law, the Karnataka high court has said in a recent judgement. Justice M Nagaprasanna said this while quashing the proceedings on charges of rape against a 23-year-old youth from Bengaluru.</p><p>The petitioner and complainant woman had got acquainted through a dating app ‘Bumble’ for over a year and later got back in touch on Instagram. They continued to exchange photographs, videos and chats and decided to meet in person. On August 11, 2024, they met for lunch and decided to take a room. According to the complainant, though she withdrew her consent midway, the petitioner nevertheless had physical intimacy with her. The next day, the petitioner dropped the complainant back to her apartment.</p><p>On August 13, 2024, after feeling certain physical discomfort, the complainant got herself examined at a hospital and realised that she was a victim of sexual assault. The same day she filed a complaint with the police. After registering a crime for offence under section 64 of the BNS, for commission of rape, the police arrested the petitioner and subsequently filed the charge sheet after investigation.</p><p>Challenging the charge sheet, the petitioner contended that the photographs and chat excerpts would clearly demonstrate the falsity of the claim made by the complainant. According to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer has deliberately not made these facts as a part of the charge sheet. The petitioner filed a memo along with documents before the court.</p>.Karnataka High Court asks government to clarify if Lalbagh trees will be felled for twin-tunnel road project.<p>On the other hand, Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had sexual assaulted the complainant. It was stated that BNS has provision to punish in cases of sex on promise of marriage. Though this is not a case of promise of marriage, whether it was a consensual or not is a matter of trial and hence the petitioner should come out clean in a full-blown trial, the state argued.</p><p>After perusing the material, the court observed that the chats would only indicate that the acts between the petitioner and complainant are all consensual. The court also cited the Apex Court judgements wherein the top court has nuanced the distinction between a consensual intimacy and the grave allegations of rape. </p><p>“A relationship born of mutual volition, even if it founders in disappointment, cannot, save in clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under the criminal law. If the present prosecution were permitted to meander into a trial, it would be nothing but a ritualistic procession towards miscarriage of justice and indeed become an abuse of the process of the law (sic),” Justice Nagaprasanna said, while quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: A relationship born of mutual volition, even if it's founders are disappointed, cannot, save in clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under the criminal law, the Karnataka high court has said in a recent judgement. Justice M Nagaprasanna said this while quashing the proceedings on charges of rape against a 23-year-old youth from Bengaluru.</p><p>The petitioner and complainant woman had got acquainted through a dating app ‘Bumble’ for over a year and later got back in touch on Instagram. They continued to exchange photographs, videos and chats and decided to meet in person. On August 11, 2024, they met for lunch and decided to take a room. According to the complainant, though she withdrew her consent midway, the petitioner nevertheless had physical intimacy with her. The next day, the petitioner dropped the complainant back to her apartment.</p><p>On August 13, 2024, after feeling certain physical discomfort, the complainant got herself examined at a hospital and realised that she was a victim of sexual assault. The same day she filed a complaint with the police. After registering a crime for offence under section 64 of the BNS, for commission of rape, the police arrested the petitioner and subsequently filed the charge sheet after investigation.</p><p>Challenging the charge sheet, the petitioner contended that the photographs and chat excerpts would clearly demonstrate the falsity of the claim made by the complainant. According to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer has deliberately not made these facts as a part of the charge sheet. The petitioner filed a memo along with documents before the court.</p>.Karnataka High Court asks government to clarify if Lalbagh trees will be felled for twin-tunnel road project.<p>On the other hand, Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had sexual assaulted the complainant. It was stated that BNS has provision to punish in cases of sex on promise of marriage. Though this is not a case of promise of marriage, whether it was a consensual or not is a matter of trial and hence the petitioner should come out clean in a full-blown trial, the state argued.</p><p>After perusing the material, the court observed that the chats would only indicate that the acts between the petitioner and complainant are all consensual. The court also cited the Apex Court judgements wherein the top court has nuanced the distinction between a consensual intimacy and the grave allegations of rape. </p><p>“A relationship born of mutual volition, even if it founders in disappointment, cannot, save in clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under the criminal law. If the present prosecution were permitted to meander into a trial, it would be nothing but a ritualistic procession towards miscarriage of justice and indeed become an abuse of the process of the law (sic),” Justice Nagaprasanna said, while quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.</p>