Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Consensual Relationship Does Not Constitute Offence under Section 69 BNS Multiple sources emphasize that a purely consensual relationship, even if it involves physical intimacy, does not automatically attract the provisions of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). For instance, ["Saravanan . C vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul - Madras"] states: The allegations indicate, at best, a breakdown of a consensual relationship, which by itself cannot attract the penal provisions of Section 69 of the BNS. Similarly, ["Virendra Verma VS State of M. P. - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 130"] notes: Even a case under section 69 of BNS is not made out because he has never given any false promise of marriage and even otherwise since the relationship continued for years together with mutual consent so no offence is made out.
False Promises of Marriage and Deceitful Means Are Essential for Offence The offence under Section 69 typically requires deceitful means, such as false promises of marriage made with no intention to fulfill, to establish an offence. ["Saravanan . C vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul - Madras"] clarifies: Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse... shall be punished. Moreover, ["C. Saravanan vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. - Madras"] states: Breach of promise of marriage would not amount to an offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, in the light of the acts being consensual.
Turn of Relationship from Consensual to Sour Does Not Constitute Criminal Offence Courts have observed that a consensual relationship turning sour or breaking down does not automatically turn into an offence. ["VIPLAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] mentions: Merely because a relationship between a couple has turned sour and the marriage did not take place are not reasons to assume that the offence of rape was committed or that the physical relationship was entered into on the basis of a false promise. Similarly, ["K.Sharath vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"] notes: A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery.
Judicial Consistency in Holding No Offence in Genuine Consensual Relationships Several judgments reinforce that consensual relationships, even if they do not culminate in marriage, do not amount to criminal offences under Section 69. ["Challa Vijay vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"] states: The relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant is consensual in nature... the ingredients of Section 69 of BNS does not get attracted against the petitioner. Likewise, ["Sukumar Das Prabhu vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"] emphasizes: There is a consensual relationship in between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant and the bail was granted subject to certain conditions.
Legal Precedents Support the View that Promises of Marriage Must Be Made in Bad Faith The courts have held that promises of marriage made in good faith, without deceit, do not constitute an offence. ["Mohd. Fayazuddin vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"] states: The allegations point out that on promise of marriage, the physical relationship was developed... the allegations do not point to any element of cheating.
Analysis and Conclusion:The consistent judicial stance across the cited cases is that a consensual physical relationship, even if preceded by promises of marriage, does not automatically constitute an offence under Section 69 of BNS. The key elements for such an offence include deceitful means or false promises made with dishonest intent. When relationships are established consensually, and promises are made in good faith without intent to deceive, courts have held that no criminal offence is made out. Therefore, mere breakdown or souring of a consensual relationship does not, by itself, amount to an offence under Section 69 BNS.
References:["Saravanan . C vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul - Madras"]["Virendra Verma VS State of M. P. - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 130"]["RITIK SAHU ALIAS PINTU VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"]["Praneeth Doudu vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]["Challa Vijay vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]["Abhishek Rathod, S/o. Late Ashok Ramappa Rathod vs State By Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru, Represented By SPP - Karnataka"]["Ganji Rahul vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]["K.Sharath vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]["NIDHEESH LAL R.P vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]["C. Saravanan vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. - Madras"]["THAJUMON @ THAJU KOYA vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]["VIPLAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"]["Mohd. Fayazuddin vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]["Mohd. Fayazuddin vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]["Sukumar Das Prabhu vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]
In today's evolving legal landscape, questions about personal relationships and their criminal implications are increasingly common. A frequent query arises: Consensual physical relationship is not constitute offence under sec.69 bns. any latest citations? This concern touches on the fine line between mutual consent and deceit in intimate matters. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 69 addresses sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or false promises of marriage. However, courts have consistently ruled that truly consensual relationships, free from deception, do not attract this provision.
This blog post breaks down the legal position, drawing from key judgments and citations. Please note: This is general information based on reported cases and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
Section 69 BNS criminalizes sexual intercourse induced by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, where it does not amount to rape. The emphasis is on intent to deceive at the time of the promise. Virendra Verma VS State of M. P. - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 130
Key elements include:- Deceitful means: False representations or tricks to procure consent.- False promise of marriage: A promise made without genuine intention to marry, leading to sexual intercourse.- Exclusion of rape: If it qualifies as rape under Section 63 BNS, different provisions apply.
Courts stress that not every failed relationship triggers this section. Mutual consent, even in long-term physical relationships, is protected if no deceit is proven. Akshay Thakur S/o Mr. Suresh Chand vs State (NCT of Delhi) - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 360
The law distinguishes consensual adult relationships from those marred by fraud. As clarified in judgments, Section 63 of B.N.S. emphasizes that a consensual relationship between two adults does not constitute rape.Akshay Thakur S/o Mr. Suresh Chand vs State (NCT of Delhi) - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 360 Extending this logic to Section 69 BNS, purely consensual physical relationships—entered with mutual understanding—do not constitute an offence.
For instance:- But, in the present case, it was consensual relationship and hence, the same does not attract.Sri Machala Sainath vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 67381- The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC. (Analogous to BNS provisions, highlighting consent's role.) Naim Ahamed VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2023 1 Supreme 623
Courts examine facts holistically: duration of relationship, communications, and absence of coercion. A long-standing relationship often indicates mutual consent, rebutting deceit claims. Virendra Verma VS State of M. P. - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 130
Recent rulings provide clarity:1. In Virendra Verma VS State of M. P. - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 130, the court noted: Merely because prosecutrix and applicant lived in a relationship for long that does not mean that offence under section 69 of BNS is not made out and it is not a case of consensual sexual relationship. This underscores that longevity supports consent.2. Akshay Thakur S/o Mr. Suresh Chand vs State (NCT of Delhi) - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 360 states: Consent given under misconception of fact is no consent in eyes of law, but limits this to recent, proximate deceptions—not prolonged mutual relationships.3. Bharani Venkat Karthik vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 76045 observes no offence where allegations fail to show false promises, emphasizing: this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry.
These citations affirm: Consensual acts without deceitful inducement fall outside Section 69 BNS.
While consensual relationships are safe, exceptions exist where deceit is proven:- False promise of marriage: Consent vitiated if the promise was insincere from inception. Deepak Gulati VS State of Haryana - 2013 3 Supreme 727- Misconception of fact: As per Section 90 IPC (mirrored in BNS context), consent under recent misconception invalidates it. However, misconception must be close in time to the act and not spread over years.Akshay Thakur S/o Mr. Suresh Chand vs State (NCT of Delhi) - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 360- Coercion or force: Shifts to rape under Section 63 BNS.
In Deepak Gulati VS State of Haryana - 2013 3 Supreme 727, Consent for physical relationship given under assurance of marriage which was avoided by the appellant – Tantamounts to rape. (Para 15). This contrasts with cases like Naim Ahamed VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2023 1 Supreme 623, where a married woman's five-year relationship was deemed consensual, leading to acquittal: Prosecutrix... was matured and intelligent enough to understand... She had betrayed her husband... It could not be said that prosecutrix had given her consent... under misconception of fact.
Other sources echo this:- Madhalaimuthu @ Raja VS State re. by the Inspector of Police, Salem - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 315: Evidence of love affair and continued relations post-events negated deceit.- Periyasamy VS State Rep. by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Salem - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 3485: Consensual elements, despite pregnancies, led to appeal allowance.- NITIN SHARMA ALIAS NITIN KAPIL VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - 2021 Supreme(UK) 712: Prosecutrix’s consent was free and voluntarily – Thus, prima facie, the offences... not made out.
Indian courts, including High Courts and Supreme Court precedents, prioritize evidence over assumptions. In Sri Machala Sainath vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 67381, consensual ties explicitly exempted the accused. Similarly, Jayaseelan VS State represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2548 upheld conviction only where consent was on misconception of fact, reducing sentence but confirming deceit.
Key Takeaways from Cases:- Duration matters: Years-long relationships suggest consent. Virendra Verma VS State of M. P. - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 130- Maturity of parties: Adults are presumed to understand implications. Naim Ahamed VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2023 1 Supreme 623- Burden of proof: Prosecution must prove deceit beyond doubt. Bharani Venkat Karthik vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 76045
These trends protect genuine relationships while punishing fraud.
Courts recommend scrutinizing consent's nature: courts should carefully examine the nature of consent, the presence of deceit or false promises.Virendra Verma VS State of M. P. - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 130
In summary, a consensual physical relationship typically does not constitute an offence under Section 69 BNS, as affirmed by latest citations like Virendra Verma VS State of M. P. - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 130, Akshay Thakur S/o Mr. Suresh Chand vs State (NCT of Delhi) - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 360, and others. The law safeguards adult autonomy while targeting deceit. However, nuances depend on facts—deceit or false promises can invoke penalties.
Key Takeaways:- Mutual consent without deceit = No offence.- Prove intent at promise's outset for Section 69 applicability.- Long-term relations bolster consent claims.
Stay informed, communicate clearly, and consult professionals. Relationships thrive on trust; the law upholds it.
References:1. Virendra Verma VS State of M. P. - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 1302. Akshay Thakur S/o Mr. Suresh Chand vs State (NCT of Delhi) - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 3603. Deepak Gulati VS State of Haryana - 2013 3 Supreme 7274. Sri Machala Sainath vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 673815. Naim Ahamed VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2023 1 Supreme 6236. Others as cited.
This post draws solely from provided legal documents. For updates, refer to official sources.
#Section69BNS, #ConsensualSex, #BNSCases
The allegations indicate, at best, a breakdown of a consensual relationship, which by itself cannot attract the penal provisions of Section 69 of the BNS . ... The same reasoning applies here, as such, the offence under Section 351 (2) of the BNS would not be attracted. ... 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, su....
Counsel for the Objector has also supported the stand taken by the State and submits that merely because prosecutrix and applicant lived in a relationship for long that does not mean that offence under section 69 of BNS is not made out and it is not a case of consensual sexual relationship. ... not fall within the ambit of section 69 of BNS. ... relationship and....
Mere subsequent refusal to marry, even if assumed, does not ipso facto constitute an offence under Sections 69 or 64 of the BNS, 2023. It is further submitted that the conduct of the complainant herself belies the prosecution story. ... The allegations made by respondent No.2 are not of a mere consensual relationship but of repeated sexual exploitation by the petitioner under a false promise of marriage. ... The alleged written assurance by the peti....
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when there is consensual relationship, the offence under Section 69 BNS does not get attracted to the petitioner and that the de facto complainant is a matured woman and was in total consciousness when she entered into the physical relationship ... Therefore, in case of consensual relationship, the offence under Section 65 or #HL_ST....
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any such offence to attract the ingredients of Section 69 of BNS and that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant is consensual in nature. ... The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 69 of BNS. The same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: “69. Sexual int....
Considering the averments of the complaint indicate that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim is consensual. Whether the act of the petitioner attracts Section 69 of BNS is a matter of investigation and trial.” ... Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that initially FIR has been registered for offence under Sections 69, 351(2) and 352 of BNS against petitioner and his mother. Thereafter charge sheet has been filed only against this petitioner....
It is made out that there was a consensual relationship. Therefore, the offence under Section 69 of BNS does not get attracted against the petitioner. Keeping aside the offence under Section 69 of BNS, all the other offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than or upto seven (07) years. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were in consensual ....
Thus, when she is aware about the consequences, it would assume the characteristics of a consensual relationship. Once when there is consensual relationship, she cannot allege the offence under Section 69 of BNS against the petitioner. ... , 318(2) of BNS. ... After having a consensual relationship for so long, she cannot allege that the petitioner had a physical relationship wi....
But, in the present case, it was consensual relationship and hence, the same does not attract. 8. For the sake of convenience, Sections 64 and 69 of BNS are extracted hereunder: “64. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No.2-de facto complainant had a consensual relationship and that the Apex Court has reiterated many a times that in cases of consensual relationship the allegati....
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. ... (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. ... of BNS. ... In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry....
If the complainant had any mala-fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.”
If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.”
The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.” If the complainant had any mala-fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape.
The decision reported in 2021 LW (Crl) 95 - Ramesh Vs. If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.””
If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC."
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
