Courts Will Become Forums For Personal Vendetta If Every Broken Relationship Is Criminalised: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR

Observing that the criminal justice system cannot be made a remedy for the emotional turmoil of failed relationships, the Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR U/s 69 and 115(2) of BNS arising from a live-in relationship in Ireland.

“….If every broken relationship were to be clothed in the garb of criminality, the Courts would transform into forums of personal vendetta, rather than forums of justice…”, the court opined while absolving the petitioner male from the continuing criminal prosecution.

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna also observed that if the sexual intercourse did not stem from 'deceit from inception', it would be unjust to 'criminalise heartbreak'.

“…the investigation even, in such cases, must not be permitted to commence or continue, as the complaint herein, even if it is accepted in its entirety, does not prima facie disclose such fraudulent intention at inception, for it to become a crime under Section 69 of the BNS.”, Justice M Nagaprasanna remarked further in the order.

Back in 2021, the concerned parties met each other for the first time in Ireland while the complainant was already married with a 7-year-old child. During the course of their live-in relationship, the communication between the parties gradually turned sour. In 2024, the complainant returned to India and filed the complaint at the Mangalore Women's Police Station. This complaint led to the current FIR accusing the petitioner of establishing physical relations on a false promise of marriage.

“….complainant has moved forward in life and entered into another relationship. While such developments are not determinative of guilt or innocence, they underscore the central reality that the subject case is a relationship that ran its course and ended...”, the court noted while examining the factual matrix of the case.

The single judge bench, after relying on various apex court judgments, observed that if a complaint only discloses a consensual sexual relationship turning sour, it would be reason enough to halt the criminal process.

“…A subsequent change of mind, emotional incompatibility, familial opposition or mere reluctance does not transmute into criminal intent at inception”, the single judge bench observed by relying on Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. The State Of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 to reiterate the clear distinction between rape and consensual sex.

Later, the court also iterated the excerpts from Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh,2022 INSC 825, which mentions that there is a distinction between a false promise given on the understanding by the maker that it will be broken, and the breach of a promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled.

“..The Apex Court, in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar supra, draws with unmistakable clarity, the doctrinal line that separates rape from consensual intimacy, where two adults of their own volition, engage in consensual sexual relation over a sustained period, the subsequent refusal of the man to marry the woman, howsoever regrettable, does not, ipso facto, transmute such intimacy into the offence of rape as punishable under Section 376 of the IPC”, the court concluded before the quashing of the FIR.

The Court noted that the complainant had filed for divorce even before meeting the petitioner, indicating that the relationship between the parties was not the reason for the dissolution of her earlier marriage. According to the complainant, the FIR came to be registered after the petitioner allegedly stopped responding to the complainant about marriage once both parties returned to India.

“Further, in Amol Bhagwan Nehul, the Apex Court observes that where the complainant is already married, the allegation of physical intimacy induced by promise of marriage stands on infirm grounds, for a promise which is ex-facie unenforceable, cannot in those circumstances, be elevated into a foundation of imputing criminality”, the court added while allowing the petition.

Case No.: WP No.35036 of 2024

Click Here To Read/ Download Order