The complainant woman said that she had met the man on Bumble a year ago and thereafter they remained in contact on Instagram. They decided to meet in person on 11 August.
Published Oct 29, 2025 | 1:01 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 29, 2025 | 1:01 PM
Karnataka High Court.
Synopsis: The woman said the man forced himself on her despite she withdrawing consent. The defense argued that the police had ignored the chats between the two. The court did not include the chats in its order, saying they were in bad taste.
The High Court of Karnataka has quashed an FIR registered based on a woman’s complaint that a man she had met on a dating app, Bumble, raped her in a hotel.
While quashing the First Information Report (FIR), Justice M Nagaprasanna of the high court noted that the “relationship was born of mutual volition”.
“A relationship born of mutual volition, even if it founders in disappointment, cannot, save in the clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under the criminal law”, the judge said.
“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,” Justice Nagaprasanna said on 25 October, according to a report by Bar and Bench.
In her police complaint dated 13 August, the woman said that she had met the man on Bumble a year ago and thereafter they remained in contact on Instagram. They decided to meet in person on 11 August.
She said the 23-year-old man picked her up from her apartment, and took her to a hotel room. The woman said she withdrew her consent for a sexual relationship when the accused started seducing her.
However, she alleged that the man ignored the withdrawal of consent and raped her. The next morning, he dropped her off back home.
The complainant further alleged that she suffered pain and went to a hospital. She later lodged a complaint and a criminal case was registered under Section 64 (Punishment for rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
During the hearing, the defence counsel submitted that all acts were consensual and sought the quashing of the FIR. However, Additional State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha opposed the argument and demanded the accused to prove his innocence in the court.
The defence also submitted that the police had ignored the chats between the man and the woman. Responding, Justice Nagaprasanna said that the chats were not in good taste nor could be reproduced in the order.
“It would only indicate that the acts between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/complainant are all consensual,” the court added.
