Holding that the offence of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage under Section 69 BNS cannot be attracted against a woman accused on the allegations made, the Karnataka High Court has quashed that charge against a woman named as the second accused in an FIR, while allowing the investigation into the remaining allegations to continue.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed the charge under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which deals with sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage, against a woman arrayed as the second accused in an FIR, holding that the offence cannot be attracted against her on the allegations in the complaint, while directing that the probe into the other alleged offences go on [X v. State of Karnataka and Another].
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde partly allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegations in the FIR are untested, the Court has expressed no view on their merits, and the presumption of innocence applies to all the accused.
The case
The petitioner, a woman, is Accused No. 2 in Crime No. 185/2026 registered at the Subrahmanyapura Police Station in Bengaluru, along with her husband, who is Accused No. 1. The FIR invokes Sections 69, 308(2) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
According to the complainant, she developed a relationship with Accused No. 1 after both accused told her that their marriage was not cordial. She alleged that he promised to marry her and then had a physical relationship with her. She further alleged that photographs and videos of her were taken and shared with a third party without her consent, and that both accused began blackmailing her, which led her to approach the police. These are allegations only, and none of them has been tested at trial.
What the Court said on Section 69 BNS
Justice Hegde held that the allegations in the complaint do not attribute any such act to the petitioner, and that the Section 69 offence therefore cannot be made out against her:
“the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, cannot be attracted against the petitioner”
The data-transfer allegations
On the allegation that private photographs and videos were transmitted, the Court declined to close the matter at this stage. It held that the contentions on data transfer need to be examined in the investigation, but added a safeguard for the petitioner:
“the contentions raised relating to data transfer require investigation”
The Court clarified that if the investigation shows no data transfer by the petitioner, or none with her consent, “there cannot be any charge sheet for the said offence against the petitioner.”
The directions
The petition was allowed in part. The operative direction reads:
“The complaint against the petitioner insofar as offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 is quashed.”
The investigating agency will continue to probe the other alleged offences and file an appropriate report. The Court also made it clear that its observations are not to be read as reflecting on Accused No. 1, who is not a party to the petition, and kept open all other contentions of the petitioner.
Why the order matters
The order shows how a court, in a petition to quash, tests a charge against the specific acts attributed to each accused. Where the complaint does not attribute to a particular accused the conduct on which Section 69 BNS turns, that charge cannot stand against her, even if she is named alongside the main accused. Here the Court found that the allegations do not indicate any such act by the petitioner.
The order also draws a line between the Section 69 charge and the separate allegations about sharing private images, which it left to investigation. The practical result is partial relief: one charge is quashed, the rest of the case remains open, and the conditional bar on a chargesheet for the data-transfer offence depends on what the probe finds. The allegations remain untested, and no view has been expressed on their merits.
Case Title: X v. State of Karnataka and Another [Criminal Petition No. 10660 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: September 25, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Suyog Herele E. for the petitioner; HCGP Nagharish G.S. for the State; Advocate Ramesha H.E. for Respondent No. 2