A consensual relationship based on a promise to marry does not constitute rape unless the promise was false from the beginning and directly induced the consent.

COMMON ORDER:

These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order as these two Petitions arise out of same crime but for different Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3.

2. Criminal Petition No.12392 of 2025 has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(for brevity ‘the BNSS’), by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2&3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.697 of 2025 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 69 , 79, 318(4), 351(2) and 115(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

3. Criminal Petition No.12393 of 2025 has been filed under Section 480 & 483 of ‘the BNSS’, by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for enlarging the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in connection with Crime No.697 of 2025 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 69 , 79, 318(4), 351(2) and 115(2) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned legal aid counsel for the Respondent No.2.

5. This Court on 05.12.2025 directed the Investigating Officer to serve notice on Respondent No.2 and file proof to that effect. However, on 08.12.2025 the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer could not serve notice on Respondent No.2 as she had gone to some country for employment. Therefore, this Court appointed a legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2.

6. Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.12393 of 2025 is the son of Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.12392 of 2025. The Accused No.1 is aged about 30 years. The Respondent No.2, victim/de facto complainant, is aged about 27 years. It was alleged by the Respondent ‑No.2 that there was a love affair between them and later they met several times physically and had sexual intercourse. Respondent No.2 alleges that the Accused No.1 had intercourse with her under the guise of marriage. In their relationship, Respondent No.2 got pregnant. Later, it was terminated. The Accused No.1 and the Respondent No.2 were in a relationship for a period of two years. Respondent No.2 further alleged that the petitioner took an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 40 grams, valued at Rs.5,00,000/-, from her. Later, the Accused No.1 refused to return them. She also further alleged that the petitioners threatened her with dire consequences. The Accused No.2 is aged about 70 years and the Accused No.3 is aged about 65 years.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra , MANU/SC/0787/2025 at para No.9 it is held as under:

“9...In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly³ to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC”.

8. In Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal , Spl Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7004 of 2025 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at un-numbered para No.7 it is held as under:

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel appearing for the State has relied upon the definition of 'Rape' and would argue that the consent given by the minor is no consent and it would