Consensual Relationship Over Years Not Offence Under BNS Section 69: Karnataka High Court
- Statutes
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s.69, s.115
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376, s.417
- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s.3(1)(r), s.3(1)(s)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s.531(2)(a)
- Source
- Verdictum
The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor, holding that a long-term consensual relationship between the accused and the victim cannot be prosecuted as an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court deemed it a misuse of the law, also dismissing charges under BNS Section 115 and the SC/ST Act.
Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established
A relationship that has been consensual for several years, where the victim was aware of the accused's marital status and there was no misrepresentation of facts, does not constitute an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (or its predecessor, Section 376 IPC) as it lacks the element of 'false promise to marry' or 'deception'.
Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates
Advocates should meticulously examine the duration and nature of the relationship to ascertain genuine consent versus 'false promise to marry'. Litigants facing charges under BNS Section 69 (or IPC Section 376) based on long-term consensual relationships may find grounds for quashing proceedings, especially if the victim was aware of the accused's marital status. Counsel must confirm the applicable criminal law regime based on the offence date.
Key Legal Takeaways
- 1Long-term consensual relationships, even if extramarital, do not automatically fall under BNS Section 69.
- 2Awareness of the accused's marital status by the victim negates the 'false promise to marry' element.
- 3Courts will intervene to quash proceedings that constitute an 'abuse and misuse' of criminal law provisions.
- 4Charges under the SC/ST Act require specific elements of caste-based abuse, not merely a failed relationship.
The Legal Issue
The Karnataka High Court addressed whether a long-standing consensual relationship between an accused and a victim, where the victim was aware of the accused's marital status, could be prosecuted as an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (or its predecessor, Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860). The case also involved charges under BNS Section 115 (or IPC Section 417 for cheating) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The core question was whether the facts disclosed a genuine 'false promise to marry' or 'deception' amounting to rape, or caste-based atrocities, or merely a consensual relationship that soured.
Court's Reasoning
The High Court, exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (or Section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for new proceedings), meticulously examined the complaint. It noted that the relationship between the doctor and the victim had spanned several years, during which the victim was fully aware that the accused was married. The Court emphasized that for an act to constitute an offence under BNS Section 69 (or IPC Section 376), the consent must be obtained by a 'false promise to marry' or through 'deception'. In this instance, the prolonged consensual nature of the relationship, coupled with the victim's knowledge of the accused's marital status, negated the element of a false promise or deception. The Court found no material to suggest that the consent was obtained by misrepresentation from the inception of the relationship. Consequently, the charges under BNS Section 69 and BNS Section 115 (cheating) were deemed unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court found no specific allegations or material to support the charges under the SC/ST Act, concluding that the complaint was a 'classic illustration of abuse and misuse' of the legal process.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant as it reinforces the principle that not every failed relationship, particularly those of a long-term consensual nature, can be criminalized under the guise of 'rape by false promise to marry' or 'cheating'. It provides crucial clarity on the interpretation of BNS Section 69 (and IPC Section 376) by distinguishing between genuine deception and a consensual relationship where circumstances change or expectations are not met. The ruling serves as a vital safeguard against the misuse of criminal provisions, particularly those concerning sexual offences and the SC/ST Act, to settle personal disputes. It underscores the judiciary's role in preventing the abuse of process and protecting individuals from unwarranted prosecution based on unsubstantiated claims. Counsel must confirm the applicable criminal law regime based on the offence date.