By: Akanksha
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of engaging in sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage, observing that the breakdown of a consensual relationship turning sour does not, by itself, amount to a criminal offence. In an order dated October 16, Justice M. Nagaprasana said the case illustrated the abuse and misuse of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means. The court also quashed charges under Section 115(2) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)–(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The court noted that consensual relationships spanning several years were increasingly being projected as criminal offences under the provision.
The case stems from a seven-year relationship between two doctors who were medical students at different colleges in Mangaluru. At present, the petitioner is pursuing his MD in Anesthesia, and the complainant woman is pursuing an MDS in Prosthodontics. The petitioner belongs to the Maratha community, and the complainant belongs to the SC category.
The complainant submitted that they met in 2017 and were initially friends between 2017 and 2019. Their physical relationship began in 2019 while both were pursuing their respective medical courses, and lasted for about four years, continuing up to November 2023. Again, after a gap, they met in year 2024 and continued the relationship up to the date of registration of the complaint.
The seven-year relationship ended without marriage. The woman approached the Mangaluru Women’s Police Station, and the alleged crime was registered against the petitioner on March 15, 2025, following which a charge-sheet was filed against the doctor. The charge sheet, dated May 13, 2025, invoked Section 69 and Section 115(2) of the BNS, along with Sections 3(1)(w)(i)–(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Also Read: Female Doctor Says She Was Rejected in Arranged Marriage for Being “Too Ambitious,” on Women's Day
According to the woman’s complaint, their marriage did not take place on account of the caste equation, caste differences, and the man’s decision to marry someone else.
The complaint also alleged that the petitioner assaulted the woman and pressured her to commit suicide. These were allegations in the complaint, not findings of established wrongdoing.
Challenging the proceedings before the High Court, the petitioner contended that while they had a physical relationship, it was consensual and was never on the promise of marriage or based on deceitful means. It was argued that a further trial for an offence under BNS Section 69 would be an abuse of the process of law, as it can not be said that he promised marriage and then began a relationship which lasted for seven years. The complainant contested his claims.
Whoever, by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry 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 a fine.
What Is the Explanation and BNS Classification for Section 69?
Under the law’s explanation, “deceitful means” shall include the false promise of employment or promotion, inducement, or marrying after suppressing identity.
Under the BNSS Classification, the offence is categorized as:
Imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and fine.
Cognizable.
Non-baliable.
Triable by Court of Session.
While examining the matter and pursuing the materials, the High Court pointed out that Section 69 of the BNS came into force on July 1, 2024, by which time the couple had already been in a relationship for several years. Justice Nagaprasanna also noted that the principal and only allegation in the complaint is that the marriage did not take place over caste discrimination.
Regarding the charge under Section 115(2) of the BNS, the court found no specific allegation or medical evidence of hurt to support the charge. The medico-legal report showed no injuries.
On the SC/ST Act charges, the court held that the allegations did not establish the necessary ingredients of the offences. It considered the relationship consensual and found that the allegation that the marriage did not take place because of caste differences did not, on the material before it, establish non-consensual sexual conduct or the necessary basis for the charge under Section 3(2)(va) of the Act.
Also Read: Doctor Chops Off Boyfriend's Genitalia Over Unfulfilled Marriage Promise
The court referred to the Supreme Court judgement in the Pramod Kumar Navaratna and Shailesh Bhai Govindbhai Makhwana to explain the distinction between a genuine relationship that fails and one founded on deception. The court said the Supreme Court spelt out that the essential ingredient to constitute the offense under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC (now Section 69 BNS) for the promise of marriage is that the intention to not fulfil the promise must exist at the very outset.
The court also considered whether the alleged deception had induced the complainant to engage in the sexual relationship. It found no material showing that the petitioner had made a promise to marry without intending to fulfil it from the beginning, or that such deception had induced the relationship.
The court held that the fact that a relationship ends without marriage is not in itself sufficient to find criminal liability, and that an analysis of the accused’s intention when making the promise is essential. It reiterated that a consensual relationship which goes bad is not a false promise of marriage.
“It is the case of the complainant herself that they met in 2017 and continued their relationship up to November 2023. Again, after a gap, they met in the year 2024 and continued the relationship up to the date of registration of the complainant. Therefore, these acts would not mean that the petitioner should be permitted to be tried,” the court said.
Finding the allegations, even if accepted as stated. Did not disclose or constitute an offence under the BNS or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the High Court accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings against the doctor.
(Rh/APC/MSM)