Karnataka High Court
Rohit Kumar Singh vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
CRL.P No. 4098 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
®
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4098 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
ROHIT KUMAR SINGH
S/O RANJITH KUMAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCC.: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
EXECUTIVE,
R/AT NO.69, 3RD MAIN,
JHBCS LAYOUT, BENDRE NAGARA,
BENGALURU CITY-560 078.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally
signed by BY KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT P.S.
LAKSHMI T
Location:
REPRESENTED BY ITS
High Court STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
of Karnataka
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. HANIYA FATHIMA
D/O SYED ILYAS,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3, SRI SAI LADIES PG,
10TH CROSS ROAD, NEAR CHETANA
ENGINEERING SERVICES,
VASANTHANAGARA,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. ROHIT SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S.528
BNSS) PRAYING TO: (A) CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN
S.C.NO.227/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LIII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU; (B) QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE
THE LIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.227/2025 FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SS. 324, 354(A), 354(B), 376, 504,
506, 509 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.11.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CAV ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent no.1/State, the
learned counsel for respondent no.2/de-facto complainant
and perused the material on record.
2. This petition is preferred under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. 1973 / 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking to exercise the
inherent powers of this Court to quash the entire
proceedings in S.C.No.227/2025 pending on the file of the
LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
3. Brief facts of the case: It is the case of the
complainant/victim that she became acquainted with the
petitioner/accused through Instagram on 04.05.2023, and
thereafter they developed friendship and began dating and
the petitioner started exhibiting inappropriate behaviour by
insisting her to take obscene photographs and videos. It is
alleged that on 27.04.2024, the petitioner, without her
permission, accessed her WhatsApp account, saved her
private photographs and chats, gathered contact details of
her parents and relatives, and thereafter on 29.04.2025,
when she informed the petitioner to end association with
him, he threatened to disclose her private images and
conversations if she failed to comply with his demands.
Further, on 30.04.2024, owing to the continuous threats,
she met the petitioner at his residence, where he allegedly
confined her inside the house, assaulted her by hitting her
on the face, forehead and body, abused her in filthy
language, forcibly removed her clothes and committed
rape upon her. Further, that on 01.05.2024, acting under
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
threat, she again went to the petitioner's house, where he
once again compelled her to undress and subjected her to
sexual assault, warning her not to disclose the incident to
anyone. On 27.06.2024, when complainant was at the
petitioner's residence, he allegedly returned home in an
intoxicated condition around 11.00 p.m., checked her
phone, assaulted her on the head, face and hands,
dragged her to the bed and beat her with a belt and
broomstick causing her fingers to swell. During the months
of May and June 2024, the petitioner continued to assault
her, verbally abused her, coerced her into sexual acts,
recorded her obscene photographs and videos, and
threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter to
anyone. It is further alleged that, petitioner forced her to
engage in repeated sexual intercourse until 29.08.2024,
demanded sexual video calls, compelled her to share
intimate videos, and used derogatory language, retained
her private WhatsApp chats and repeatedly threatened
that her parents would be informed if she disclosed the
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
incidents, due to which she refrained from lodging a
complaint earlier.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that, the very initiation and continuation of the
proceedings is an abuse of process, as the allegations in
the complaint, FIR and charge sheet, even if accepted in
their entirety, do not disclose the ingredients of the
offences alleged. It is urged that the complaint is actuated
by mala fides and has been lodged with an ulterior motive
to wreak vengeance on the petitioner. It is contended that
the parties were in a consensual relationship from May
2023, and even according to the complainant, they
continued to meet and maintain intimacy till August 2024
without any protest or complaint, which demonstrates that
the allegations of coercion, assault and sexual violence are
an afterthought intended to harass the petitioner. The FSL
report does not indicate the presence of seminal stains or
spermatozoa, and therefore, the allegation of sexual
assault cannot be sustained.
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
5. It is further contended that both parties are
adults and any physical relationship, if admitted, was
consensual and therefore, does not attract Section 376
IPC, which is otherwise bereft of its foundational
ingredients in the present case. It is argued that the
charge sheet, filed without proper appreciation of the
facts, is legally unsustainable and continuation of the
prosecution would amount to abuse of process.
6. The learned counsel relied on a decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1947. The relevant
paras are extracted hereunder:
"16. It is by now well settled that summoning any person
on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is
something very serious. This would tarnish the image of
the person against whom false, frivolous and vexatious
allegations are levelled.
17. The duty of the court in cases where an accused seeks
quashing of an FIR or proceedings on the ground that
such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, or vexatious, or
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
was delineated by this Court in Mohammad Wajid v. State
of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951. We may refer to the
following observations:
"34. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused
comes before the Court invoking either the
inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then
in such circumstances the Court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance, etc., then he would
ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well
drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The
complainant would ensure that the averments
made in the FIR/complaint are such that they
disclose the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it
will not be just enough for the Court to look
into the averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of
the case over and above the averments and, if
need be, with due care and circumspection
try to read in between the lines. The Court
while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of
the Constitution need not restrict itself only to
the stage of a case but is empowered to take
into account the overall circumstances leading
to the initiation/registration of the case as well
as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on
hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over
a period of time. It is in the background of
such circumstances the registration of
multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby
attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance
out of private or personal grudge as alleged."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader
contended that the materials in the complaint, FIR and
charge sheet, when read collectively, disclose specific and
serious allegations of sexual assault, criminal intimidation
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
and outraging modesty, which warrant a full-fledged trial.
It is contended that the victim's statements under Sections
161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are consistent and clearly implicate
the petitioner, and at this stage the Court cannot embark
upon an appreciation of evidence or examine the
correctness of the allegations. It is further submitted that
the plea of consensual relationship is a matter of defense,
not determinable in a petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, and the precedents relied upon by the
petitioner are distinguishable on facts. Thus, it is urged
that the petition is devoid of merit and the proceedings
cannot be quashed at the threshold.
8. The learned counsel for respondent
no.2/defacto-complainant vehemently opposed the petition
by filing statement of objections and contending that the
allegations in the FIR and the detailed statement of the
victim clearly disclose a consistent pattern of assault,
sexual violence, intimidation, and digital blackmail
committed by the petitioner after the relationship between
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
the parties ended in April 2024, and that the plea of
"consent" is an afterthought raised only to escape from
criminal liability for offences falling squarely within
Sections 354(A), 354(B), 376, 506 and 509 of IPC. It is
submitted that the victim's account is corroborated by
contemporaneous electronic evidence, including messages,
screenshots of threats, retrieval of explicit images from the
Petitioner's device, and statements of material witnesses,
all of which have been duly collected and reflected in the
charge sheet. The question of consent or absence thereof
is a matter for trial and cannot be determined at the
threshold under Section 482 Cr.P.C., particularly in cases
of sexual assault, where the Supreme Court has repeatedly
cautioned against quashing based on disputed facts or
interpretations of conduct.
9. It is further urged that the allegations of mala
fides are baseless, and the delay in lodging the complaint
stands sufficiently explained by the victim's fear, coercion
and threats to her reputation and family honour. As the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
materials on record disclose a strong prima facie case and
the proceedings are already at the stage of Sessions trial,
the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 BNSS cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate
prosecution.
10. Learned counsel further contends that the claim
of "consensual relationship" is a disputed factual defense
which cannot be examined under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528
BNSS, particularly when the material collected - including
electronic communications, screenshots of threats,
recovery of explicit images from the Petitioner's devices
and witness statements - prima facie supports the victim's
version. As the charge sheet reveals sufficient material
constituting the alleged offences, the case must proceed to
trial and no ground is made out for exercising inherent
powers to quash the proceedings.
11. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 has
placed reliance on the following judgment. Relevant paras
are extracted hereunder:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
Kumar Gaurav @ vinu v. State of Karnataka in
Criminal Revision Petition No. 119/2019 DD.
02.07.2021.
"12. In the instant case according to the complainant, the
first instance of alleged rape is said to have taken place on
01.03.2017. The complaint was filed on 26.04.2017 i.e.
within a period of two months. However, according to the
complainant, there were few more acts of alleged rape
upon her by the petitioner in the meantime. It is
throughout the case of the complainant that for the first
incident of alleged rape upon her which was on
01.03.2017, there as no consent from her side either direct
or indirect or even a forcible consent. According to her, it
was seducing her by administering some drug through
some juice she was made to fall unconscious and at that
time petitioner (accused No.1) subjected her to rape.
Therefore, as at this stage and as could be gathered from
the charge-sheet materials, the alleged first incident of
rape was devoid of any type of consent from the alleged
victim towards the act. However, the alleged subsequent
incidents of alleged sexual acts which the complainant has
called as the incidents of rape at this stage appear to be by
the involvement of the complainant also. However, the
complainant has stated in her complaint itself that she was
forced to join the accused No.1 to different places including
some resorts and hotels since the accused was
blackmailing her of publishing her nude photographs in
social Medias including YouTube. According to the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
complainant those photographs were taken by the accused
when she was for the first time subjected to rape by the
accused No.1 after making her unconscious by
administering some drug. She has also stated, even
thereafter also the accused by forcing her and blackmailing
her had secured her few more photographs and started
blackmailing, as such, she had to join the accused and
tolerate all his sexual acts said to have been practiced
against her. In such a circumstance, at this stage and
prima facie, only by going through the charge sheet papers
it cannot be concluded that the complainant was a
consenting party to the alleged incidents. The same has to
be ascertained only after a full fledged trial."
12. FIR is registered in Crime No.267/2025 of
Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, for the offence
punishable under sections 324, 342, 354A, 354B, 376,
504, 506 and 509 of the IPC, on the complaint of
respondent No.2 / victim, on 31.08.2024. The petitioner
was arrested in 01.09.2024, and was subsequently
enlarged on bail. Upon completion of investigation, charge
sheet is filed by dropping section 342 IPC and retaining
other offences same as in FIR.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
13. It is the case of prosecution that the petitioner
initiated contact with the victim through Instagram on
04.05.2023, gradually developed friendship, persuaded her
to engage in sexual conversations and video interactions.
It is alleged that he coerced the victim into sending nude
photographs and sexually explicit videos of herself, and
when she resisted, he threatened to disclose her private
images, videos, and chat records to her parents and on
social media, thereby intimidating and blackmailing her.
Further, the Petitioner wrongfully confined her in his
residence multiple times, and subjected her to repeated
acts of forcible sexual assault. During these incidents, he
allegedly physically assaulted her by beating her with his
hands and a broom, abused her in obscene and degrading
language continuously threatened to ruin her social
reputation and education prospects if she disclosed these
acts.
14. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant
to note the provisions of Section 90 of I.P.C.,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
(corresponding Section 28 of the BNS), which deals with
the consent given under fear or misconception, which
reads as under:
"90. Consent known to be given under fear or
misconception.-- A consent is not such a consent as
it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent
is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a
misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act
knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent
was given in consequence of such fear or
misconception; or
Consent of insane person.-- if the consent is given by a
person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is
unable to understand the nature and consequence of that
to which he gives his consent; or
Consent of child.-- unless the contrary appears from the
context, if the consent is given by a person who is under
twelve years of age."
15. In Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala, (2013) 9
SCC 113, the Apex Court has held that the consent for the
purpose of Section 375 I.P.C. requires voluntary
participation not only after the exercise of intelligence
based on the knowledge of the significance of the morality,
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
quality of the act but after fully exercising the choice
between the resistance and assent whether there was
consent or not is to be ascertained only after careful study
of the relevant circumstances.
16. In State of H.P. v. Mange Ram reported in
(2000) 7 SCC 224, while considering the same issue,
held as under: (SCC pp. 230-31, para 13)
"13. Submission of the body under the fear of terror cannot
be construed as a consented sexual act. Consent for the
purpose of Section 375 requires voluntary participation not
only after the exercise of intelligence based on the
knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act
but after having fully exercised the choice between
resistance and assent."
17. From the FIR, complaint, statement of the
victim recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., and the
material collected during investigation, this Court is of the
view that no case is made out for exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS. The
brief factual matrix reveals that though the petitioner and
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
the victim were in a relationship, the victim has
categorically stated that she attempted to terminate the
relationship on 29.04.2024, thereafter the petitioner
allegedly continued to intimidate her, committed sexual
assault, used her private images to exert pressure, and
subjected her to physical and emotional abuse on multiple
occasions till August, 2024. These allegations, taken at
face value, disclose specific instances of coercion, physical
assault, sexual assault, and criminal intimidation, which
cannot be termed inherently improbable or absurd at this
stage.
18. This Court is conscious of the settled position
that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of
Cr.P.C/ Section 528 BNSS 2023, the Court is not expected
to conduct a mini-trial or meticulously appreciate the
evidence. At this stage, the Court is only required to
examine whether the uncontroverted allegations, taken at
face value, prima facie make out the ingredients of the
alleged offences. The assertions of the petitioner regarding
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
consensuality, absence of medical / forensic traces of
seminal stains or spermatozoa, alleged delay in lodging the
complaint, and continued association between the parties
are matters which require adjudication and cannot be
determined at this stage.
19. The complaint averments reveal a pattern of
coercion, threats, wrongful confinement, physical assault,
sexual exploitation and psychological intimidation, despite
complainant's attempts to end the relationship. The
allegations disclose serious accusations of sexual assault
committed under duress, supported by specific instances
and substantiated through the victim's detailed statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. At this stage, these assertions
cannot be discarded as inherently improbable or manifestly
false, nor can they be adjudicated on the basis of disputed
facts within the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section
482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. Interference at this
stage would amount to throttling a legitimate prosecution
at its threshold. This Court finds no perversity, illegality or
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48373
HC-KAR
abuse of process in the continuation of the criminal
proceedings.
20. In light of the above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petition is devoid of merit and
does not warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. /
Section 528 of the BNSS. Accordingly the petition stands
dismissed.
The observations made in the order are confined to
this petition and shall not influence the trial of the case.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
TL
