A breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it can be proven that the promise was made with intent to deceive from the outset.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in CC No.135/2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 69, 351(2), and 352 of the BNS, 2023.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri K.A.Chndrashekara for the petitioners, learned HCGP Sri K.Nageshwarappa for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri Pradeepa R., for respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The second respondent is the complainant. The second respondent out of a troubled marriage which ends up in a divorce, befriends the petitioner. The friendship blossomed into relationship in the year 2023 and goes on till the date of registration of the complaint. The complainant is alleging that the petitioner has indulged in ingredients of Section 69 which would be having physical relationship with the victim by deceitful means with a promise to marry. The police after investigation, filed a charge sheet for the afore-quoted offences. The filing of the charge sheet has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was purely consensual, never on the promise of marriage and it goes on for a period close to two years and when the petitioner did not agree to the demands of the complainant, the complaint comes to be registered.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the respondent/complainant is not willing to pursue the complaint and therefore, have settled the matter and would leave the decision to the hands of the Court.

6. The learned HCGP appearing for the state would submit that the petitioner should come out clean in a full blown trial and it should not be closed by way of a settlement merely because the complainant has come forward to settle the dispute. Since the charge sheet is filed, the trial is a must is the submission of the learned HCGP. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the two, i.e., the first petitioner and the respondent No.2/complainant is also a matter of record. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint.

7. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet.

8. The summary of the charge sheet as obtained in column No.17 reads as follows:

9. A perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet would clearly indicate that the relationship between the two, i.e., the first petitioner and the complainant was consensual. Breach of promise of marriage would not amount to an offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, in the light of the acts being consensual. The issue need not detain this Court for longer or delve deep into the matter.

11. The Apex Court in a plethora of cases has held that the consensual relationship for a period of two years and on the breach of ‘promise of marriage’ cannot result in an offence of rape. I deem it apposite to refer to a few:

11.1. The Apex Court in the case of PRITHIVIRAJAN v. STATE , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 696, holds that merely because physical relations were established based on a promise of marriage, it will not amount to rape. The judgment reads as follows:

"4. The entire case of the prosecution is that the appellant is being charged, inter-alia, under Section 376 of the IPC for the reason that the appellant had given false promise of marriage to the prosecutrix and thus obtained her consent for sexual relationship but later backed out of his promise, and for that reason it is a case of rape. The logic given here is that in case there is no consent then it would be rape as defined under section 375 of IPC. In order to pro