Cannot claim false promise of marriage after 5-year live-in relationship, rules court

The order added that, if this were permitted, it would place a premium on the complainant’s acts and permit the process of law to be abused by the complainant, apart from resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice.

Five-year relationship and false marriage promise

The petitioner and the complainant met through Facebook, developed a friendship that turned into a romantic relationship, and lived together in a rented house for about five years. According to the petitioner, he believed the complainant was unmarried but later discovered that she was already married to another man, after which he ended the relationship and left.

Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that Section 69 of the BNS criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or false promise of marriage.

The complainant first approached the police station in March 2025. The police recorded statements of both parties, and closed the matter in June 2025. She later lodged a fresh complaint in July 2025, alleging that the petitioner had induced her into a sexual relationship on a false promise of marriage, cheated her financially, assaulted and threatened her, and misappropriated her money and valuables.

Based on this complaint, the case was registered, a charge sheet was filed under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and the sessions court took cognisance. The petitioner then approached the high court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.

Petitioner denies false marriage promise

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Mayur D Bhanu, Shamanth Gowda J, and Charan N S contended that he and the complainant were in a consensual live-in relationship for over five years after meeting on Facebook.

It was stated that he believed the complainant was unmarried because she had repeatedly represented herself as a single woman, and only later discovered that she was already married. After learning of her marital status, he distanced himself, following which she allegedly began blackmailing him and lodged criminal complaints.

The petitioner argued that a five-year live-in relationship could not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 69 or 79 of the BNS and produced material from an earlier criminal case to contend that the complainant had made similar allegations against others in the past.

Acts between two were purely consensual: Order

The court held that the undisputed facts showed the parties had voluntarily lived together in a live-in relationship for about five years after meeting on Facebook. The relationship was admittedly consensual and continued for a prolonged period.

The court observed that Section 69 of the BNS criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a false promise of marriage. However, in a five-year live-in relationship, it was difficult to accept that the complainant continued to have sexual relations solely because of a promise of marriage.
It noted that the complaint itself indicated that the sexual relationship between the parties was consensual, not forced or induced by deception.

Concluding that the essential ingredients of Section 69 BNS were absent, the court held that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.