"Trend Of Invoking Criminal Process In Private Relationships Must Be Checked": Madras High Court Quashes False Promise To Marry Case Against Man

Justice B Pugalendhi noted that recently, there was an increase in complaints of rape under false promise to marry, where the relationship was voluntarily entered into and was subsequently projected as deception or breach of promise. The court added that such personal matters do not warrant criminal prosecution.

“Of late, this Court has witnessed an increase in complaints of this nature, where relationships voluntarily entered into are subsequently projected as instances of deception or breach of promise. Such matters, rooted in personal association and mutual choice, do not ordinarily warrant criminal prosecution. The growing tendency to invoke the criminal process in private relationship disputes must be checked, for the criminal law cannot be permitted to become a means for settling personal or emotional disputes,” the court said.

The court discussed that the instances of premarital intimacy between consenting adults were not uncommon these days, and the court had to acknowledge the changing contours of personal relationships in contemporary society. The court added that it was neither possible nor appropriate for the court to determine conclusively whether the relationship was founded on affection, expectation of marriage, or mere mutual pleasure, as it was known only to the parties in the relationship.

“The line between emotional attachment and physical relationship is often indistinct, and when such relationships end in discord, competing narratives frequently emerge about what transpired in private. What is transpiring between them is within the realm of personal choice. Whether the relationship was founded on affection, expectation of marriage, or mere mutual pleasure is known only to them. It is neither possible nor appropriate for a Court to conclusively determine such matters,” the court observed.

The court added that criminal process could not be used to moralise the private conduct or convert personal disappointments into litigation, as the court was only concerned with the aspect of legality. The court made it clear that it could only intervene when the consent was vitiated by coercion, deception or incapacity.

The court made the observations on a plea by a man for quashing the case registered against him under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the BNS for allegedly having sexual intercourse with a girl on the false promise of marriage.

The prosecution had alleged that he had developed a relationship with the de facto complainant, an advocate. It was alleged that the petitioner had invited the de facto complainant to a motor shed near his village and had sexual intercourse with her against her will, on the pretext that he would marry her. It was further alleged that the man continued to have sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant on multiple occasions but later refused to marry her, citing caste differences.

The petitioner argued that the relationship between them was consensual and mutual, and the complaint was lodged out of personal animosity after the relationship turned sour. He submitted that there was no deceitful intention at the inception of the relationship and he could not be fastened with criminal liability merely because the relationship was strained.

Citing the decisions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, the court noted that in the present case, the materials disclosed that the relationship between the parties spanned for several years from 2020 to 2025 and there was no material to suggest that the petitioner had a fraudulent or mala fide intention. The court added that the breakdown of the relationship, by itself could not attract the penal provisions under Section 69 of BNS.

The court observed that what happened between the parties was a matter of their personal choice and it was not open for either of the parties to later portray it as criminal misconduct.

Stressing that law cannot be an instrument for attributing moral blame arising from consensual acts between parties, the court was inclined to quash the case, noting that continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law.

Thus, the court allowed the plea and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the man.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.P.Sathish Kumar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Ms.S.Prabha

Case Title: Saravanan C v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 415

Case NO: Crl.OP(MD)No.12300 of 2025