The case followed a complaint by Ahmed's former partner, who alleged that he stopped taking her calls and later blocked her after claiming he was visiting his ailing father.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said there was no other material before the court to establish the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 69.
The High Court granted an interim stay on further proceedings against Ahmed until the next date of hearing.
'Ghosting' & 'Seen-zoning' Not Enough For BNS Section 69 Offence: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court stayed proceedings against a man accused under BNS Section 69, observing that allegations of ghosting and seen-zoning alone did not satisfy the offence's ingredients
Summary
The Karnataka High Court has stayed criminal proceedings against Thufail Ahmed, who was accused of having sexual relations on a false promise of marriage. The order came after allegations of 'ghosting' and 'seen-zoning' failed to satisfy the ingredients of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bar & Bench reported.
Justice M Nagaprasanna issued the interim order in Thufail Ahmed v. State. The judge said allegations of 'seen-zoning' and 'ghosting' did not, by themselves, satisfy the ingredients of an offence under Section 69.
Ahmed had approached the High Court seeking a stay on proceedings after the police filed a chargesheet.
Origins Of The Dispute
The case arose from a complaint filed by Ahmed's former partner, who said their relationship began in December 2025.
Ahmed told her he was travelling to Chennai to visit his ailing father who was undergoing medical treatment, Bar & Bench reported. After becoming suspicious of his explanation, she asked him to join her on a video call.
He stopped taking her calls and later blocked her. The complaint accused Ahmed of offences under Sections 69 and 115 of the BNS.
Ruling On Section 69
During the hearing, Advocate Syed Anwar, representing Ahmed, argued that the complaint stemmed from underlying 'trust issues', Bar & Bench reported.
The High Court's interim order comes in the early phase of judicial interpretation of Section 69 of the newly enacted BNS. The court focused on whether the alleged withdrawal from communication and subsequent blocking of the complainant could, without other material, constitute the ingredients of the offence.
Justice Nagaprasanna said there was no other material before the court that could fulfil the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 69.
"It is the allegation that the petitioner had begun to seenzone the respondent and ghost her throughout. Therefore, the offence under s.69 has sprung. Except this there is nothing else that could become the ingredients of the offence under s.69. In that light there shall be an interim order of stay on further proceedings qua the petitioner till the next date of hearing." Justice Nagaprasanna said as Bar & Bench quoted.
Advertisement
The court subsequently granted an interim stay on further proceedings against Ahmed till the next date of hearing.
Published At: