Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. Pugalendhi, J
Saravanan . C – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul – Respondent
Crl.OP(MD)No.12300 of 2025 | Crl.MP(MD)Nos.9539, 9542 of 2025
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was consensual and mutual, spanning several years. The court emphasized that prolonged consensual relationships cannot be deemed deceitful solely because they later sour (!) .
The allegations of deceit or false promises made at the inception of the relationship were found to lack sufficient evidence. The court noted that a false promise made without the intent to deceive from the beginning does not constitute criminal liability, especially when the relationship continued for a long period without protest (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the complainant, being an educated adult and a practicing advocate, was aware of the implications of her conduct, and the relationship's breakdown does not automatically imply deception or criminal intent (!) (!) .
The court clarified that mere breach of promise or personal disputes arising from consensual relationships do not warrant criminal prosecution and can be considered abuse of the legal process if invoked improperly (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The legal distinction between consent obtained through deception and consensual acts was emphasized. Consent, being a reasoned act, must be understood in the context of the nature and timing of promises and conduct, with particular attention to whether there was mala fide intent from the outset (!) (!) (!) .
The continuation of a physical relationship over an extended period, without protest or objection, dilutes the element of deception, making allegations of false promises less tenable (!) .
The court observed that private relationships and personal choices are within the realm of individual autonomy, and the criminal law should not be used to moralize or resolve emotional disputes stemming from consensual acts (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court found that pursuing criminal proceedings in this case would constitute an abuse of process, and therefore, the petition to quash the proceedings was allowed (!) (!) .
In summary, the court prioritized the principles that consensual, long-standing relationships, especially among aware adults, should not be criminalized solely based on personal disputes or the breakdown of such relationships, unless there is clear evidence of deception or mala fide intent from the outset.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks quashing of consent-based relationship allegations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the nature of consent. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court observes consent, emphasizes personal choice, and legal interpretations of character. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. judicial precedents clarify the distinction between promise and deception. (Para 7 , 9 , 13) |
| 5. final decision quashing proceedings. (Para 17) |
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.75 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Dindigul.
2.The petitioner is the sole accused in the said proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant, an Advocate enrolled in 2018 with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, was acquainted with the petitioner during her college days at the Government Law College, Madurai, while the petitioner was studying at the Madurai Kamaraj University. They developed a relationship, and on 11.03.2020, the petitioner is said to have invited her to a motor shed near his village, where he allegedly had sexual intercourse with her against her will, on the pretext that he was going to marry her. Thereafter, they are stated to have had sexual intercourse on several occasions. When the defacto complainant later enquired about marriage, the petitioner refused and, on 25.01.2025, allegedly threatened her, citing caste differences. Hence, the complaint.
3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relationship between the parties was entirely consensual and mutual. The complaint has been lodged out of personal animosity after the relationship soured. It is further submitted that there was no deceitful intention at the inception of the relationship and that the petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability merely because their relationship got strained. The defacto complainant, being a law graduate and a practising Advocate, was fully aware of the implications of their conduct and cannot now claim to have been deceived.
4.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned Counsel for the second respondent / defacto complainant submitted that the petitioner induced the complainant into a physical relationship by making a false promise to marry her and subsequently refused to do so, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 69 of the BNS.
5.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
6.The case has been registered for the offence u/s.69, 351(2) BNS. Section 69 of the BNS reads as follows:-
“Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”
7.The essential ingredient of this offence is that the accused must have had sexual intercourse by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling the same.
8.In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [(2013) 7 SCC 675], the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the distinction between a mere breach of promise and a false promise made with mala fide intent from the inception. Unless the intention to deceive existed at the very beginning, subsequent failure to marry would not attract criminal liability. The relevant portions are extracted as under:-
“21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex
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
