A consensual relationship based on a promise to marry that later sours does not constitute rape unless the promise was false from the inception, made solely to secure consent.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 69, 79, 318(4), 351(2) and 115(2) read with 3(5) - Pre-arrest bail - Consensual relationship - Promise to marry - Allegation of sexual intercourse under guise of marriage - Relationship of two years - Pregnancy and termination - Alleged demand for money and gold ornaments - Threat allegations - High Court, considering consensual nature of relationship and precedents from Apex Court, granted pre-arrest bail to accused aged 70 and 65 years and bail to accused aged 30 years. (Paras 2 to 19)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 - Pre-arrest bail - A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery - A promise to marry must be false from inception to vitiate consent - Breach of promise due to intervening circumstances is not a false promise. (Paras 7, 9, 14, 15, 16)

(C) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 69 - Sexual intercourse under false promise of marriage - For offence to be attracted, the promise of marriage must have been false, given in bad faith with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given, and must bear direct nexus to woman's decision to engage in sexual act. (Paras 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
Two criminal petitions were filed arising out of same crime (Crime No.697 of 2025) registered for offences under Sections 69, 79, 318(4), 351(2) and 115(2) read with 3(5) of BNS. One petition was for pre-arrest bail for Accused Nos.2 and 3 (aged 70 and 65 years), the other for regular bail for Accused No.1 (aged 30 years), who is son of Accused No.2. The victim (aged 27 years) alleged a love affair, consensual physical relationship under promise of marriage, pregnancy and its termination, and that accused took Rs.10,00,000/- and 40 grams of gold ornaments, and later threatened her.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the relationship between accused No.1 and the victim was consensual and spread over two years. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that a consensual relationship turning sour cannot justify invoking criminal machinery, and a breach of promise to marry must be distinguished from a false promise made with no intention of fulfillment from inception. The court found that the facts did not indicate a false promise from the beginning but rather a relationship that soured.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail/pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage and other offences, when the relationship appeared to be consensual.

Ratio Decidendi: A consensual relationship based on a promise to marry does not amount to rape unless the promise was false from the very inception and the consent was given under a direct misconception of fact. Mere breach of promise due to intervening circumstances does not vitiate consent.

Result: Both Criminal Petitions were allowed. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were granted pre-arrest bail, and Accused No.1 was granted regular bail, with conditions including execution of bond, sureties, weekly appearance before police, not leaving state without permission, and surrender of passports.

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/0787/2025at 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 still be a rape. In our considered opinion, as regarding the rape being committed by the appellant when the prosecutrix was a minor, there is absolutely no evidence, and definitely no forensic evidence with the prosecution. It is only an allegation in the FIR after more than 03 years, in orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22843

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHY. LAKSHMANA RAOPeeka Chandra Sekhar – AppellantVersusThe State of Andhra Pradesh – RespondentCRLP 12392/2025

A consensual relationship based on a promise to marry that later sours does not constitute rape unless the promise was false from the inception, made solely to secure consent.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Peeka Chandra Sekhar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRLP 12392/2025