BENGALURU<\/em>: The Karnataka High Court<\/a><\/strong> raised serious concerns over the growing misuse of Section 69 BNS<\/a><\/strong>, particularly in cases arising out of failed relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice M. Nagaprasanna<\/strong> ordered the immediate release of a man who had been in custody for 42 days based on allegations of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage. The Cfalsourt also stayed further investigation in the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While granting relief, the Court made a strong observation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe litigation is with regard to misuse of Section 69 of the BNS and mushrooming of cases before this Court by the day and in all cases, where the relationship ends in a breakup, the man is in the lockup. Therefore, it is necessary for this Court to direct release of the petitioner forthwith.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court carefully examined the complaint and found that the relationship between the parties was consensual throughout. It noted that there was no allegation of force or coercion at any point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAll consensual as not a word of allegation of sexual assault by petitioner against the complainant is narrated\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The bench relied on precedents<\/strong> laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra <\/strong>and Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra<\/strong>, which clearly distinguish between breach of promise and criminal intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on these principles, the Court held that continuing criminal proceedings in such circumstances would be legally unsustainable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The facts revealed that both individuals were colleagues who entered into a relationship that later became physical. After around eight months, the relationship ended, following which the complaint was filed alleging that the man had made a false promise of marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, upon reviewing the complaint, the Court found no material indicating that the promise was deceitful from the beginning.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThough the provision i.e., Section 69 of the BNS would punish a person having sexual intercourse with the victim on the deceitful promise of marriage, in the case at hand there is no indication except the fact that the breach of promise of marriage is an afterthought that springs in the complaint\u2026.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the Court allowed the accused\u2019s applications, ordered his release from custody, and stayed the criminal proceedings pending before the Magistrate. Notice was also issued to the complainant.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This order reflects a growing judicial recognition that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle personal scores after consensual relationships fail, especially when no element of deception exists at the inception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table \u2013 Laws & Legal Position<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Consent (General Criminal Law Principle)<\/strong><\/td> Valid consent must be free, informed, and not obtained by fraud<\/td> If consent is voluntary and continuous \u2192 not an offence<\/td> Court held acts were \u201call consensual\u201d<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Breach of Promise vs Criminal Offence<\/strong><\/td> Mere failure to marry \u2260 criminal offence<\/td> Must prove promise was false from beginning<\/td> Court held allegation appears afterthought post-breakup<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra<\/strong><\/td> Landmark SC judgment on false promise cases<\/td> Distinguishes breach of promise from rape<\/td> Applied to hold proceedings legally unsustainable<\/td><\/tr> Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra<\/strong><\/td> Reinforces requirement of fraudulent intent<\/td> Protects against criminalisation of consensual relationships<\/td> Relied upon to stay<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n