{"id":1614,"date":"2025-11-21T15:39:39","date_gmt":"2025-11-21T10:09:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=1614"},"modified":"2025-11-21T15:17:56","modified_gmt":"2025-11-21T09:47:56","slug":"amount-to-false-promise-to-marry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/amount-to-false-promise-to-marry\/","title":{"rendered":"Breakups And Fights In Relationships Don\u2019t Amount To False Promise To Marry Rape: Madras HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Boyfriend"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Fights Don\u2019t Amount To False Promise To Marry<\/em>: The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)<\/strong> has clearly held that a long consensual relationship between two adults cannot later be turned into a criminal case<\/strong>, especially when there is no proof<\/strong> that the man never intended to marry<\/strong> from the beginning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court quashed the criminal case<\/strong> against Saravanan C., who was accused of entering into a physical relationship with a woman advocate<\/strong> after allegedly promising to marry her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saravanan was facing charges under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita<\/a> (BNS),<\/strong> which deal with sexual intercourse by deceit and criminal intimidation<\/strong>. The woman, Pothumponnu, said that in March 2020 he had sexual intercourse with her in a motor shed<\/strong> 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<\/strong> and threatened her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saravanan\u2019s lawyer told the Court that the couple were in a mutual and fully consensual relationship for years<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice B. Pugalendhi examined the evidence and said that for Section 69 BNS to apply, there must be a promise \u201cwithout any intention of fulfilling the same\u201d<\/strong>. He quoted Supreme Court rulings to show that only promises made dishonestly at the beginning can lead to criminal charges\u2014not genuine relationships that later fall apart<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court reproduced the Supreme Court\u2019s important explanation<\/strong> from Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana<\/strong>, which states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cConsent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation…\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It further added:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThere is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex\u2026 the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage\u2026 There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion\u2026 Such cases must be treated differently.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n


The Supreme Court also warned that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe intention of the accused was mala fide\u2026 at the very beginning must be proved; otherwise, later failure to marry cannot be criminalised.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Then the Court quoted Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra<\/strong>, noting that continuing a relationship for many years weakens the claim of deception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe fact that the relationship continued for nine long years\u2026 would render the plea\u2026 implausible\u2026 Such a prolonged continuation\u2026 takes out the sting of criminal culpability and neutralises it.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court also relied on Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra<\/strong>, quoting:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cA consensual relationship turning sour\u2026 cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery\u2026 Courts have warned against misuse\u2026 and termed it a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Next, the Court used the Supreme Court\u2019s observations in Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal<\/strong>, quoting:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cEvery consensual relationship\u2026 cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry\u2026 It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law\u2026\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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<\/strong>, not a criminal act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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)<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe ingredients of criminal intimidation are threat\u2026 with intent to cause alarm\u2026 In the instant case\u2026 the relationship\u2026 was consensual\u2026 Therefore, there cannot be a case of criminal intimidation\u2026\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWhat is transpiring between them is within the realm of personal choice\u2026 The criminal process cannot be used to moralise private conduct or convert personal disappointment into litigation\u2026\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The judge further added a powerful line:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe law is not an instrument for resolving emotional fallouts or for attributing moral blame arising from consensual acts between adults.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Breakups
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Mentioned In The Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td>What It Covers (Simple English Explanation)<\/strong><\/td>How It Was Used in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Sexual intercourse by deceitful means or by promising marriage without intending to fulfill it<\/strong>, punishable up to 10 years + fine.<\/td>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<\/strong>, and the long relationship (2020\u20132025) showed it was consensual<\/strong>, not deceit.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 351(2), BNS<\/strong><\/td>Criminal intimidation \u2014 threat to cause injury, loss, or fear, intending to alarm someone into doing something.<\/td>Complainant alleged he threatened her in January 2025. Court found no evidence of real threat<\/strong>; disputes happened only after breakup.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 528 BNSS<\/strong><\/td>Provision under which a party can seek transfer or quashing of proceedings.<\/td>Used by the accused to file a petition seeking quashing<\/strong> of the case.<\/td><\/tr>
Supreme Court Precedent: Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013)<\/strong><\/td>Distinguishes between false promise<\/strong> and failure to keep a genuine promise<\/strong>. Intent at the beginning is key.<\/td>Court quoted lengthy extracts to show that only initial fraudulent intent leads to offence<\/strong>, not a normal relationship later collapsing.<\/td><\/tr>
Supreme Court Precedent: Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024)<\/strong><\/td>Long relationships weaken claim of deception; years-long consensual intimacy shows there was no cheating.<\/td>Court used this to state that a relationship running for several years (like this one) \u201cneutralises criminal culpability.\u201d<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Supreme Court Precedent: Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (2025)<\/strong><\/td>Warns courts not to criminalise breakups. A sour relationship \u2260 crime.<\/td>Court cited it to say failed relationships should not be given \u201ccriminal colour.\u201d<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Supreme Court Precedent: Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (2025)<\/strong><\/td>Growing misuse: people file cases when relationships end. Criminal law should not resolve personal disputes.<\/td>Court relied on this to justify stopping the prosecution at initial stage.<\/td><\/tr>
Supreme Court Precedent: Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024)<\/strong><\/td>Criminal intimidation is not made out when parties were in consensual relationship; disputes after breakup do not amount to threats.<\/td>Used to dismiss the Section 351(2) BNS charge.<\/td><\/tr>
General Principle (Court\u2019s own observation)<\/strong><\/td>Courts deal with legality, not morality<\/em>. Consensual adult relationships should not be converted into criminal litigation.<\/td>Judge said: courts cannot \u201cmoralise private conduct\u201d<\/strong> or handle emotional fallouts.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Case Title<\/strong>: Saravanan C. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Another<\/strong> Crl.OP(MD) No. 12300 of 2025 Madurai Bench, Madras High Court<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bench<\/strong>: Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice B. Pugalendhi<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Date<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n