Madras High Court quashed a case against a Dindigul man accused of having sex on a false Promise to marry, saying a long consensual relationship cannot be treated as deceit. The Court said criminal law cannot be used to settle emotional disputes between adults.
Fights Don’t Amount To False Promise To Marry: The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has clearly held that a long consensual relationship between two adults cannot later be turned into a criminal case, especially when there is no proof that the man never intended to marry from the beginning.
The Court quashed the criminal case against Saravanan C., who was accused of entering into a physical relationship with a woman advocate after allegedly promising to marry her.
Saravanan was facing charges under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deal with sexual intercourse by deceit and criminal intimidation. The woman, Pothumponnu, said that in March 2020 he had sexual intercourse with her in a motor shed after promising marriage, and their relationship continued for years. She later claimed that when she asked him to marry her, he refused because of caste issues and threatened her.
Saravanan’s lawyer told the Court that the couple were in a mutual and fully consensual relationship for years, and the complaint was filed only after the relationship broke down. Since the complainant was an educated adult and an advocate, she was fully aware of her decisions. The State, however, argued that he lured her with a false promise of marriage.
Justice B. Pugalendhi examined the evidence and said that for Section 69 BNS to apply, there must be a promise “without any intention of fulfilling the same”. He quoted Supreme Court rulings to show that only promises made dishonestly at the beginning can lead to criminal charges—not genuine relationships that later fall apart.
The Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s important explanation from Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, which states:
“Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation…”
It further added:
“There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex… the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage… There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion… Such cases must be treated differently.”
The Supreme Court also warned that:
“The intention of the accused was mala fide… at the very beginning must be proved; otherwise, later failure to marry cannot be criminalised.”
Then the Court quoted Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, noting that continuing a relationship for many years weakens the claim of deception.
It stated:
“The fact that the relationship continued for nine long years… would render the plea… implausible… Such a prolonged continuation… takes out the sting of criminal culpability and neutralises it.”
The Court also relied on Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, quoting:
“A consensual relationship turning sour… cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery… Courts have warned against misuse… and termed it a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise.”
Next, the Court used the Supreme Court’s observations in Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, quoting:
“Every consensual relationship… cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry… It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law…”
After reading these judgments, the Court said that the relationship between Saravanan and the complainant lasted from 2020 to 2025, and she, being a practising advocate, was fully aware of her actions. There was no evidence that he had dishonest intentions from the start. The Court said the allegations only showed a relationship breakdown, not a criminal act.
On the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 351(2) BNS, the Court quoted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi):
“The ingredients of criminal intimidation are threat… with intent to cause alarm… In the instant case… the relationship… was consensual… Therefore, there cannot be a case of criminal intimidation…”
The judge then made strong remarks about misuse of criminal law in relationship disputes. The Court acknowledged modern social realities and said that premarital intimacy between consenting adults is not unusual. It emphasised that courts should not interfere in private choices or convert emotional disagreements into criminal cases.
The Court stated:
“What is transpiring between them is within the realm of personal choice… The criminal process cannot be used to moralise private conduct or convert personal disappointment into litigation…”
The judge further added a powerful line:
“The law is not an instrument for resolving emotional fallouts or for attributing moral blame arising from consensual acts between adults.”
The Court also noted a growing trend where failed relationships are turned into criminal complaints, and warned that criminal law should not be used this way.
Finally, the High Court held that continuing the case would be an abuse of process and therefore quashed the proceedings against Saravanan. All connected petitions were also closed.
Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Mentioned In The Case
| Law / Section | What It Covers (Simple English Explanation) | How It Was Used in This Case |
| Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 | Sexual intercourse by deceitful means or by promising marriage without intending to fulfill it, punishable up to 10 years + fine. | The complainant said the accused had sex with her on false promise of marriage. The Court held there was no evidence he lied from the beginning, and the long relationship (2020–2025) showed it was consensual, not deceit. |
| Section 351(2), BNS | Criminal intimidation — threat to cause injury, loss, or fear, intending to alarm someone into doing something. | Complainant alleged he threatened her in January 2025. Court found no evidence of real threat; disputes happened only after breakup. |
| Section 528 BNSS | Provision under which a party can seek transfer or quashing of proceedings. | Used by the accused to file a petition seeking quashing of the case. |
| Supreme Court Precedent: Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) | Distinguishes between false promise and failure to keep a genuine promise. Intent at the beginning is key. | Court quoted lengthy extracts to show that only initial fraudulent intent leads to offence, not a normal relationship later collapsing. |
| Supreme Court Precedent: Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024) | Long relationships weaken claim of deception; years-long consensual intimacy shows there was no cheating. | Court used this to state that a relationship running for several years (like this one) “neutralises criminal culpability.” |
| Supreme Court Precedent: Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (2025) | Warns courts not to criminalise breakups. A sour relationship ≠ crime. | Court cited it to say failed relationships should not be given “criminal colour.” |
| Supreme Court Precedent: Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (2025) | Growing misuse: people file cases when relationships end. Criminal law should not resolve personal disputes. | Court relied on this to justify stopping the prosecution at initial stage. |
| Supreme Court Precedent: Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) | Criminal intimidation is not made out when parties were in consensual relationship; disputes after breakup do not amount to threats. | Used to dismiss the Section 351(2) BNS charge. |
| General Principle (Court’s own observation) | Courts deal with legality, not morality. Consensual adult relationships should not be converted into criminal litigation. | Judge said: courts cannot “moralise private conduct” or handle emotional fallouts. |
Case Title: Saravanan C. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Another Crl.OP(MD) No. 12300 of 2025 Madurai Bench, Madras High Court
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Pugalendhi
Date
- Reserved on: 28.08.2025
- Delivered on: 12.11.2025
Petitioner: Saravanan C.
Respondents
- State of Tamil Nadu, represented by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul AWPS Rural (Crime No. 9/2025)
- Pothumponnu (Complainant)
Counsels
- For Petitioner: Mr. P. Sathish Kumar
- For State / R1: Mr. A.S. Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
- For R2 (Complainant): Ms. S. Prabha
Court & File Details
- Court: Judicial Magistrate No. III, Dindigul
- Case sought to be quashed: PRC No. 75 of 2025
- Legal provision used for quashing: Section 528 BNSS
Charges Against The Accused
- Section 69 BNS – Sexual intercourse by deceitful means / false promise of marriage
- Section 351(2) BNS – Criminal intimidation
Facts (As per FIR & complaint)
- Complainant: Advocate, enrolled 2018
- Relationship started during college days at GLC Madurai and MKU.
- On 11.03.2020: she alleged he had sex with her in a motor shed “against her will” on promise of marriage.
- Relationship continued for years with repeated intimacy.
- On 25.01.2025: she claimed he refused to marry due to caste issues and threatened her.
Court’s Key Findings
- Relationship lasted 5 years (2020–2025), showing mutual consent, not deception.
- No proof he never intended to marry from the start.
- Complainant is an educated advocate aware of her actions.
- Filing case after relationship breakdown is misuse of criminal law.
- No ingredients of Section 351(2) as threats arose only after breakup.
- Court stressed that adult intimacy ≠ crime and criminal law is not for emotional disputes.
Final Order: The criminal proceedings in PRC No. 75/2025 are QUASHED.
Connected petitions closed.
Key Takeaways
- A long, consensual adult relationship cannot be criminalised just because the woman later feels disappointed or the relationship breaks down.
- The Court recognised that false promise-to-marry cases are increasingly being misused as retaliation after breakups, and warned against turning private disputes into criminal cases.
- The complainant was an educated practising advocate, proving that even legally knowledgeable individuals misuse gender-biased laws against men.
- The Court held that emotional disagreements or pressure during a breakup do not amount to criminal intimidation, and cannot be used to trap men under serious charges.
- The judgment reinforces that men cannot be punished for simply deciding not to marry, and criminal law must not become a weapon for settling personal or emotional scores.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.