2025:MHC:2570 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 28.08.2025 DELIVERED ON : 12.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.OP(MD)No.12300 of 2025 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.9539, 9542 of 2025 Saravanan . C : Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul AWPS Rural, Dindigul District.

Cr.No.9/2025

2.Pothumponnu : Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS to call for the records pertaining to PRC.No.75 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sathish Kumar For Respondents: Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

for R.1 Ms.S.Prabha for R.2 *****

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 impli