Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. 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 (!) .

2. 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 (!) (!) .

3. 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 (!) (!) .

4. 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 (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

6. 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 (!) .

7. 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 (!) (!) .

8. 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.