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. {Para 11}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10660 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
XXX Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
Citation: NC: 2026:KHC:53190
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner; learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed to quash the FIR and the
complaint in Crime No.185/2026 registered before the
Subrahmanyapura police station for the offences alleged
under Sections 69, 308 (2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections
66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that, the petitioner is the legally wedded
wife of accused No.1 who is not a party to the present
proceedings.
4. The complainant claims that she had a
relationship with accused No.1, the husband of the
petitioner. The complaint is filed on the allegation that the
petitioner and accused No.1 represented to the
complainant that their marital relationship is not cordial. It
is stated in the complaint that the complainant developed
acquaintance with the accused and it is alleged that
accused No.1 promised to marry the complainant and
thereafter, had a physical relationship with the
complainant.
5. It is also alleged that, several photographs and
videographs of the complainant were taken by accused No.
1 and 2 and that they have shared the same to third
person without the consent and knowledge of the
complainant.
6. It is also alleged that, there was an attempt by
accused No.1 and 2 to blackmail the complainant and in
this behalf the complaint is filed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that, Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, does not
apply to the petitioner. It is also submitted that, data is
not transmitted by the petitioner/Accused No.2 to any
other person, as alleged.
8. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner
that, if there is a dispute between accused No.1 and the
complainant arising out of their alleged relationship, the
petitioner, who is married to accused No.1, 11 years ago,
cannot be made accused of the crime.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader would
oppose the petition on the ground that the investigation is
still in progress and during the course of investigation, the
police have recovered certain materials indicating that the
petitioner has transmitted the photographs and the
videographs of the complainant without the consent and
knowledge of the complainant.
10. The Court has considered the contentions raised
at the Bar and perused the records.
11. 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.
12. However, it is noticed from the materials placed
on record that, there is an allegation of transfer of
photographs pertaining to the complainant without the
consent and knowledge of the complainant.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge
that the complainant has not transferred any
images/photographs pertaining to the complainant and
even if it is found to be transferred from the petitioner's
cell phone, then, it is quite possible that somebody might
have misused the petitioner's cell phone and for such
misuse the petitioner cannot be prosecuted.
14. 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.
15. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is
allowed-in-part. The complaint against the petitioner
insofar as offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 is
quashed.
16. There shall be investigation relating to the other
offences alleged. Based on the investigation appropriate
report will have to be filed by the Investigating Agency.
17. It is made clear that the observations made in
this order should not be construed as having reflected
anything on the allegations against accused No.1, who is
not party to this proceeding.
18. All other contentions of the petitioner are kept
open.
No comments:
Post a Comment