Married Woman Voluntarily Going To A Hotel With Another Man Can't File Section 69 BNS Case: Kerala High Court

Can a married woman allege that a sexual relationship was induced solely by a man's promise to marry her while her existing marriage was still subsisting? The Kerala High Court examined this question while quashing a Section 69 BNS case against a 31-year-old man.

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), after observing that a married woman who voluntarily accompanied another man to a hotel and had sexual intercourse with him could not claim, merely on the basis of an alleged promise of marriage, that the relationship was induced solely by that promise.

The order was passed by Justice Jobin Sebastian on September 3, 2026, in Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala & Anr., Crl.M.C. No. 4354 of 2026, arising from Crime No. 1440/2025 of Kovalam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

The accused had approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of the FIR and all further proceedings.
The prosecution alleged that the accused made a false promise to marry the complainant.

According to the case, on November 3, 2025, he took her to a hotel at Kovalam and had sexual intercourse with her after allegedly mixing sedatives in food given to her. It was further alleged that he took nude photographs of her and later sent those photographs to her through WhatsApp. On these allegations, offences under Section 69 BNS and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2008 were invoked against him.

During the proceedings, the accused informed the High Court that the dispute had been amicably settled. The complainant also filed an affidavit stating that the matter had been settled following the intervention of the accused's family members and that she wanted the criminal proceedings to be quashed. The Senior Public Prosecutor similarly informed the Court that the dispute had been settled and that the complainant was no longer interested in continuing the prosecution.

However, the High Court did not quash the case merely because the parties had reached a settlement. It observed that the allegation involved a serious offence and could not be treated only as a private dispute between two individuals because it also involved societal interest. The Court, therefore, examined whether the allegations themselves satisfied the legal requirements of the offence.

Section 69 BNS applies where a person, by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry a woman without intending to fulfil that promise, has sexual intercourse with her. The offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and fine.

The High Court found an important fact in the complainant's own First Information Statement. She was already married, had two children, and her husband was alive. Her existing marriage was therefore subsisting at the relevant time.

Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:

“a married woman who voluntarily accompanies another man to a hotel room and has sexual intercourse with him cannot, merely on the basis of an allegation of a promise of marriage, contend that the sexual relationship was induced solely by such promise, particularly when her subsisting marriage was not in dispute… In the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the consent for the sexual relationship was induced by any false promise to marry the de facto complainant or by any other deceitful means. Consequently, the materials placed on record do not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 69 of the BNS”.

The Court held that even if the allegations in the First Information Statement were accepted at face value and in their entirety, the essential ingredients required for an offence under Section 69 BNS were not made out. In the circumstances of this case, the Court found that the woman's consent to the sexual relationship could not be said to have been induced by a false promise of marriage or by other deceitful means.
This distinction was important because a criminal prosecution under Section 69 BNS cannot survive merely because an allegation of a promise to marry has been made. The facts must disclose the statutory ingredients of the offence. Where those ingredients are absent, continuation of criminal proceedings can unnecessarily subject an accused person to the burden of a prosecution that has little prospect of succeeding.

The Court also considered the settlement between the parties and found that the possibility of a successful prosecution had become "remote and bleak". It held that continuing the criminal case would serve no useful purpose and "would only amount to an abuse of the process of law."

Accordingly, the Kerala High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 1440/2025 of Kovalam Police Station as well as all further proceedings against the accused, exercising its powers under Section 528 BNSS.

The decision underlines that allegations involving sexual relationships and promises of marriage must be tested against the specific ingredients of the criminal offence. A serious criminal provision cannot be sustained only on the wording of an accusation when the surrounding admitted facts do not support the statutory requirement of deceit or inducement.

LAWS & SECTIONS EXPLAINED

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A serious criminal case cannot survive merely because a promise of marriage is alleged. The legal ingredients still have to be proved.
• The complainant was already married, had two children, and voluntarily accompanied the man to a hotel.
• Kerala HC found that Section 69 BNS was not made out even if the allegations were taken at face value.
• The Court said continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process.
• A man should not be dragged through years of criminal litigation when the basic ingredients of the offence itself are missing.