Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR on Alleged False Promise of Marriage

It is definitely most refreshing to note that while taking a most pragmatic step, the Karnataka High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled XXXX v. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 1225 of 2025 that was reserved on 06.01.2026 and then finally pronounced on 19.01.2026 has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) for rape that had been registered against an advocate on a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that he had sexual relations with her on the false pretext of marriage.

It is undoubtedly extremely significant to note that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice M Nagaprasanna minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that the allegations in the complaint disclosed a consensual relationship between two adults, which could not be characterized as rape merely on the ground of an alleged false promise of marriage.

It definitely merits just no reiteration that each and every Judge in India must emulate such most laudable judgments in similar such cases so that this rampant and malicious misuse of penal laws in India is nipped in the bud altogether!

Purpose of the Petition

While stating the purpose of the petition, the Bench points out before stating anything else that, “This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying to quash the fir and complaint in CR.NO.789/2024, by the Byadarahalli Police, which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, The FIR alleges offences P/U/S 3(5), 318(2), 351(2), 69, 89, 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023.”

Offences Alleged in the FIR

Background of the Petitions

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice N Pragaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Criminal Petition No.1225 of 2025 is filed by accused No.1 and the companion petition in Criminal Petition No.2826 of 2025 is filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3. These petitioners challenge a common crime in Crime No.789 of 2024. The complainant is common. Therefore, these petitions are taken up together and considered by this common order.”

As we see, the Bench then observes in para 2 that, “For the sake of convenience, the facts obtaining in Criminal Petition No.1225 of 2025 would be narrated. In this order, accused No.1 would be referred as the petitioner, for easy reference.”

Facts of the Case

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, “Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

Relationship Between the Parties

• The petitioner is said to be in relationship with the complainant.
• Accused 2 and 3 in the companion petition are the relatives of accused No.1.
• The complainant is a resident of Anjananagara for the last 4 to 5 years.

It is the averment in the petition that the 2nd respondent/complainant is a resident of Anjananagara for the last 4 to 5 years and her marriage had taken place 10 years ago with a particular person and the complainant has a child born from the said wedlock.

In the year 2014, the averment in the petition is that the complainant again married one Yathish Kumar T.R. and the said marriage got dissolved in the year 2020 and from the said wedlock she has a child of 4 years now.

Acquaintance With the Petitioner

In the year 2020, it appears that she gets acquainted with the present petitioner, a practicing Advocate in a case pertaining to Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleges that during the conversation with the petitioner, he took the telephone number of the complainant and began conversation.

The conversation turned into personal and the petitioner thereafter in the year 2022 sent a friend request on Instagram of the complainant and also made phone call to the complainant requesting her to accept his request. Accordingly, friendship between the complainant and the petitioner developed and the friendship further blossomed into having physical relationship as well.

Alleged Promise of Marriage

The petition further narrates that in the month of July 2023 the petitioner came to the house of the complainant and expressed that he is willing to marry her and on the pretext of marriage has had physical relationship which continued thereafter and on the breach of said promise of marriage, the complainant registers a complaint before the jurisdictional Police on 09-12-2024 not only against the petitioner but also against relatives of the petitioner.

Registration of crime has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions.

Chronology of Events as Noted by the Court

Briefly stated, the Bench states in para 10 that, “The relationship of the parties to the lis are as narrated hereinabove covering both these petitions. The facts, dates and link in the chain of events are again not in dispute.

The narration in the complaint is with regard to certain sexual escapades of the petitioner with the complainant. At the penultimate paragraph, the complainant narrates that the attitude of the petitioner suddenly changed and began to ignore the calls of the complainant.

Later it is the narration that she comes to know that the parents of the petitioner are searching for a girl to get accused No.1 married. Therefore, the complaint comes to be registered as the petitioner has, on several occasions committed the offence of rape for two years, on the pretext of marriage, but he is wanting to get married with someone else.

She further narrates that due to the acts of the petitioner in the year 2024 she had even become pregnant and the petitioner told the complainant to get the pregnancy terminated. Immediately after registration of the complaint, these petitions are preferred.

Bench Observations On Consent

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 11 that, “A perusal at the complaint would indicate that even if it is taken on its face value, they were consensual acts for two years whether on the pretext of marriage or otherwise. Jurisprudence is replete with the judgments rendered by the Apex Court from time to time, which has intertwined the concept of rape and consensual sex and how consensual sex on the promise of marriage cannot amount to rape. I deem it appropriate to notice the said judgments.”

Apex Court Judgments Cited

It would be apposite to note that the Bench points out some of the following judgments of Apex Court which have been cited in this notable judgment:-

Findings On Complainant Conduct

To put it briefly, the Bench points out in para 14 that,

“14.5 When all these facts, borne out from official records, are considered cumulatively, it becomes difficult to comprehend, far less accept, how the complainant could credibly assert that she consented to sexual relationship on a “promise of marriage”, when she appears to have been in a subsisting marital relationship or at the very least, in a continuing domestic association, and is also mother of 2 children, one about 13 years old and the other about 4 years.

14.6. What is more disturbing is the disquieting fashion in which the complainant has sought to implicate other members of the family of the petitioner. They are arraigned on a tenuous allegation that they did not cooperate or support the petitioner’s marriage with the complainant, thereby attempting to create a narrative of cheating. Criminal law cannot be permitted to be expanded by such facile insinuation.”

Interpretation Of Section 69 BNS

Most rationally, the Bench points out in para 15 that, “The offences alleged included Section 69 of the BNS. Section 69 of BNS reads as follows:

“69. Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.—Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—“deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity.”

Section 69 criminalizes sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means including a promise of marriage, without intention of fulfillment. The provision though newly introduced, cannot be interpreted, in a manner that allows it to become an instrument of retroactive criminalization of consensual relationships upon the mere recital of “promise”. The statute punishes deceit, not disappointment; fraud, not failed affection; and exploitation, not the collapse of relationship. On the facts presented, it is difficult to discern where from the offence under Section 69 could even spring. The complainant on her own showing and on admitted records, appears to have been married/associated in other relationships, and to have children. In such circumstances, the allegation of sexual intercourse, induced solely on promise of marriage is inherently implausible and legally unsustainable, consequently, neither Section 96 BNS nor Section 64 BNS (Section 376 of the earlier regime, the IPC) can be attracted.”

Principles On Quashing Proceedings

Tersely put, it is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 18 that,

“The Apex Court reiterates with crystalline clarity that where the proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, inherently improbable or maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance, the High Court should not hold itself looking into artful drafting of the complaint, but should travel to consider the antecedent circumstances that led to registration of the crime, and obliterate the same if it finds any of the aforesaid factors.”

Core Reasoning Of The Judgment

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 19 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that,

“Applying the aforesaid principles to the case at hand, the documents and events noticed hereinabove unmistakably disclose, that the complaint is not a genuine criminal grievance, but bears a strong imprint of manipulation and of an attempt to convert private discord into public prosecution. This, therefore, is a fit case where even proceedings for malicious prosecution may be warranted. However, this Court for reasons best left unstated, restrains itself and holds its hands from issuing such direction. Wherefore, this Court cannot permit the criminal process to be employed as an engine of harassment or a weapon of retaliation and become an abuse of the process of the law, eventually resulting in miscarriage of justice.”

Final Order Of The Court

Finally and as a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 20 that,

“For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

O R D E R

(i) Criminal Petitions are allowed.

(ii) FIR in Crime No.789 of 2024 registered at Byadarahalli Police Station and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru stands quashed.”

Concluding Observations

In sum, it is definitely in the fitness of things that the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru deems it fit to quash ‘manipulated’ rape case against advocate. It was also made abundantly clear that this Court cannot permit the criminal process to be employed as an engine of harassment or a weapon of retaliation and become an abuse of the process of the law, eventually resulting in miscarriage of justice. It is high time that penal laws are amended most promptly to decriminalize consensual relationship between two adults which should not be characterized as rape merely on the ground of an alleged false promise of marriage. No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.