Can a relationship that lasted years suddenly turn into a 10-year criminal offence after it ends?
The Karnataka High Court questions why consensual intimacy is increasingly being converted into immediate arrest under Section 69 BNS.
Consensual Sex case: Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court on February 24 ordered the immediate release of a man who had been arrested under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for alleged sexual intercourse by deceitful means.
The Court strongly remarked on the growing trend of criminal cases being filed after consensual relationships turn sour.
The case involved a man and a woman who met through the dating application Bumble. According to the petitioner’s counsel, both adults entered into a consensual physical relationship, which continued for about a year. However, after the relationship ended, the woman filed an FIR under Section 69 BNS, alleging that the man had sexual intercourse with her on a false promise of marriage.
Section 69 BNS deals with sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry without intention to fulfil it, in cases where the act does not amount to rape. The provision allows punishment of up to ten years.
While hearing the matter, the Court made strong oral observations about the increasing use of this provision in failed relationships. The Court observed, “Its becoming rampant now”.
Justice Nagaprasanna further dictated in his order:
“When the relationship would tumble, the crime has emerged against the petitioner on the score that the petitioner has had sexual intercourse with complainant deceitfully on promise of marriage. Such cases being registered on the onset of Section 69 are mushrooming before this court. This case becomes a classic illustration of one such case which has mushroomed. Therefore there shall be an interim order of stay of proceedings against petitioner until the next date of hearing…”
At that stage, the petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that the accused had already been taken into custody. The Court then orally remarked:
“Everybody after having two-three years of consensual relationship…register a crime and the man is inside…”
The Court also took note of the State’s approach of arresting accused persons immediately upon registration of the offence, simply because the punishment prescribed is up to ten years. The order records:
“The State on the score that the offence alleged is one punishable with 10 years imprisonment, is on the moment of registration of crime is taking every accused into custody. The petitioner is now remanded to judicial custody and custody is extended upto 4-3-2026. In a case of this nature where the accused could not have been taken into custody as they were all purely consensual acts between the two the petitioner is now facing imprisonment. In that light I deem it appropriate to direct jail authorities to forthwith release the petitioner from prison and be set at liberty with conditions”.
The case reflects a harsh reality. Two consenting adults chose to be in a relationship. When it worked, there was no complaint. When it failed, criminal law entered the picture. The High Court’s intervention highlights that personal relationships cannot automatically be converted into criminal cases merely because one party feels aggrieved after a breakup.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 69 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Penalises sexual intercourse obtained by deceit or false promise of marriage | FIR registered alleging intercourse on false promise after breakup |
| Explanation to Section 69 BNS | Defines “deceitful means” including false inducement and suppression of identity | Invoked to justify allegation of deception in relationship |
| Criminal Procedure Code / Procedural Law on Arrest | Governs arrest in cognizable offences | Accused arrested immediately after FIR registration |
| Remand Provisions under Criminal Procedure | Enables judicial custody after arrest | Petitioner remanded to judicial custody until March 4, 2026 |
| Bail Jurisprudence Principles | Protect personal liberty and prevent unnecessary detention | Court ordered release noting consensual nature of acts |
| Article 21 Constitution of India | Safeguards personal liberty and due process | Court emphasised liberty where arrest was unjustified |
Case Details
- Case Title: Petitioner v. State
- Court: Karnataka High Court
- Bench: Justice M Nagaprasanna (Single Judge Bench)
- Date of Order: February 24, 2026
- Nature of Proceedings: Challenging FIR registered under Section 69 BNS
Key Takeaways
- A failed consensual relationship cannot automatically be converted into a criminal case just because emotions changed later.
- Adult men are increasingly facing arrest in cases where the relationship was voluntary for years, raising serious concerns about misuse of law.
- Personal liberty cannot be sacrificed merely because an FIR is filed under a provision carrying up to 10 years punishment.
- Criminal law must punish real deception, not become a pressure tactic after a breakup.
- Due process and scrutiny before arrest are essential safeguards for men against mechanical detention in relationship disputes.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
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.