The Karnataka High Court has quashed a complaint against a woman to the extent that it invokes Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. This section deals with sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including a false promise to marry. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, however, allowed the investigation into the remaining allegations to continue.
Background
The case arises from Crime No. 185/2026, registered at the Subramanyapura police station in Bengaluru. The complainant said she had a relationship with the petitioner's husband, who is accused No. 1. According to her, the couple told her their marriage was not cordial. She claimed that the husband then promised to marry her and developed a physical relationship with her.
She also alleged that both accused took her photographs and videos and shared them with third persons without her consent, and that an attempt was made to blackmail her. The petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 2, was booked under Sections 69, 308(2) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS. These provisions broadly cover deceitful sexual relations, extortion, criminal intimidation and acts done with common intention. She was also booked under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which relate to privacy violation and electronic publication of sexually explicit material.
The petitioner's counsel argued that Section 69 does not apply to her and that she transmitted no data to anyone. He added that she has been married to accused No. 1 for 11 years, and a dispute between him and the complainant over their alleged relationship cannot make her an accused. The High Court Government Pleader opposed the plea, saying the investigation is still on and police have recovered material suggesting that the photographs and videos were transmitted by the petitioner without the complainant's consent.
On Section 69, the Court was clear:
"Admittedly, the petitioner is a women and is arrayed as accused No.2 and the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, cannot be attracted against the petitioner and the allegations in the complaint do not indicate any such act by the petitioner."
The Court noted that the records still contained an allegation of transfer of the complainant's photographs without her consent. The petitioner had argued that someone else might have misused her phone. On this, the Court said:
"The Court is of the view that the contentions raised relating to data transfer require investigation. In case, during the course of investigation if it is found that there is no data transfer by the petitioner or with the consent of the petitioner, then there cannot be any charge sheet for the said offence against the petitioner."
Allowing the petition in part, the Court quashed the complaint against the petitioner only insofar as it concerns Section 69 of the BNS. It directed that the investigation into the other alleged offences shall go on, and that the Investigating Agency must file an appropriate report.
The Court clarified that its observations should not be taken as reflecting on the allegations against accused No. 1, who is not a party to the proceedings, and kept all other contentions of the petitioner open.
Case Details
Case Title: X v. State of Karnataka and Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 10660 of 2026
Judge: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde
Decision Date: 25 September 2026
