Both Already Married, Relationship Predated Marriage Talks: Karnataka HC Quashes Rape Case Over Alleged False Marriage Promise

Respondent No. 2 alleged that on 3 February 2025, at the petitioner’s flat, he assaulted her and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her, having previously promised to marry her; she also alleged that he threatened to kill her.

An earlier complaint had resulted in an NCR dated 4 February 2025.

The subsequent complaint led to registration of Crime No. 177/2025 under Sections 115(2), 318(2), 351(2) and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings.

He maintained that the parties, both then married to other people, had been in a relationship before they discussed marriage, and that the relationship later deteriorated.

Respondent No. 2 disputed the petitioner’s account of the alleged abuse.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 115(2), 318(2), 351(2) and 64 of the BNS, and exercised its quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It stated that a promise of marriage made without any intention of fulfilment from the outset must be distinguished from a relationship or marriage proposal that later fails; the subsequent failure to marry, by itself, does not establish that the promise was false from its inception.

The judgment cites no precedents.

The Court considered the earlier complaint, the parties’ admitted relationship, their marital status when the relationship began, and the chronology indicating that discussions about marriage arose after the relationship had commenced.

It found that these circumstances did not provide the necessary factual foundation for the allegation that respondent No. 2 entered the relationship because of a promise of marriage made with dishonest intent from the outset.

The medical records and payment documents were not disbelieved, but the Court held that they did not, by themselves, establish that the physical relationship began because of such a promise.

It also clarified that neither the failure of a relationship nor the filing of a sexual-offence complaint should be treated as determinative without examining the facts and offence ingredients.

Although the complaint included allegations of assault and threats, the Court’s stated reasoning focused on the alleged false promise of marriage.

It allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 177/2025 pending before the XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.