Madras High Court Quashes Case of Deceitful Promise to Marry, Citing Prolonged Consensual Relationship

Madurai: In a significant ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of having sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage, holding that the criminal process cannot be used to settle emotional disputes arising from a soured consensual relationship.

The decision, delivered by Justice B. Pugalendhi, emphasizes that for an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS ) to be established, there must be evidence of deceitful intent from the very inception of the relationship, not just a subsequent failure to marry.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Saravanan C., sought to quash proceedings initiated against him under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means or false promise to marry) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the BNS . The complaint was filed by a practicing advocate who alleged that she and the petitioner, whom she knew from her college days, were in a relationship.

The complainant claimed that in March 2020, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her against her will under the pretext of marriage. She alleged the act was repeated on several occasions, but when she later enquired about marriage in January 2025, the petitioner refused, citing caste differences, and threatened her.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner's Counsel argued that the relationship was entirely consensual and mutual. They contended that the complaint was lodged out of personal animosity after the relationship failed. It was stressed that there was no deceitful intention at the beginning of the relationship and that the complainant, being a law graduate, was fully aware of the implications of her actions.

• Respondent's Counsel maintained that the petitioner had induced the complainant into a physical relationship by making a false promise to marry her and later reneged on it, thereby fulfilling the ingredients of Section 69 of the BNS .

Legal Principles and Supreme Court Precedents

Justice Pugalendhi's judgment heavily relied on established Supreme Court precedents to distinguish between a "mere breach of promise" and a "false promise" made with mala fide intent.

• Distinction Between Breach and Deceit: Citing *** Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana ***, the Court reiterated that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the initial stage, the accused had no intention of keeping his promise. A subsequent failure to marry due to unforeseen circumstances does not automatically amount to a criminal offence.

• Prolonged Relationships: The Court drew from the Supreme Court's observation in *** Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra ***, which held that the prolonged continuation of a physical relationship (nine years in that case) dilutes the element of deceit and makes the plea of consent under a "misconception of fact" implausible.

• Abuse of Criminal Process: Referencing *** Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra *** and *** Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal ***, the judgment cautioned against the growing tendency to give a criminal colour to consensual relationships that turn sour, terming such actions an "abuse of the process of law."

Court's Pivotal Observations

The Court made several critical observations on the nature of modern relationships and the limits of legal intervention:

> "This Court is conscious of the prevailing social realities. It is a matter of fact that, in present times, instances of premarital intimacy between consenting adults are not uncommon... The criminal process cannot be used to moralise private conduct or convert personal disappointment into litigation, as Courts deal with legality, not morality."

The judgment further noted that both parties were educated adults who consciously entered into a relationship.

> "Having exercised that choice, it is not open to either to later portray private discord as criminal misconduct. The law is not an instrument for resolving emotional fallouts or for attributing moral blame arising from consensual acts between adults."

Final Decision and Implications

Applying these principles, the High Court found that the relationship between the parties spanned several years (2020-2025) and was consensual. There was no material to suggest the petitioner had a fraudulent intent at the inception. The Court concluded that the allegations, at best, indicated a breakdown of a relationship, which could not attract the penal provisions of Section 69 BNS . The charge of criminal intimidation under Section 351 (2) BNS was also dismissed as untenable in the context of a once-cordial consensual relationship.

Stating that the continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings against Saravanan C.