Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Sanketh Kumar S @ Chethan S/o Siddaraju – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
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 consensu
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.
Consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape even if they are based on a promise of marriage that was not fulfilled, unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent.
Consent in consensual relationships invalidates allegations of rape; merely non-fulfilling marriage promises does not constitute a crime when prior consent for sexual interactions is established.
Consensual relationships cannot be classified as rape simply due to a breach of promise to marry; criminal liability requires clear evidence of bad faith or deceit by the accused.
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape if the accused had no intention to deceive at the time of the promise.
Section 375 of IPC states that a man is said to commit rape if he has had any form of sexual intercourse without consent of a woman.
The court established that consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape under Section 376 of the IPC unless there is clear evidence of deceit or lack of consent, emphasizing the importance ....
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent for rape; a distinction exists between a false promise of marriage and a breach of promise.
Prolonged consensual relationships undermine claims of rape under false promises, indicating that consent may not be vitiated by misconception of fact.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
