Breakdown of Consensual Live-In Relationship Following Alleged Breach of Marriage Promise Does Not Constitute Section 69 BNS Offence

The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 (Complainant) met in Ireland in 2021 while pursuing Masters degrees.

They entered into a consensual physical relationship and began cohabiting in December 2022.

At the time, the Complainant was already married with a child, though a divorce petition by mutual consent was pending, which was eventually granted in August 2023.

The relationship soured by mid-2024.

Upon returning to India, the Complainant filed an FIR (Crime No. 106/2024) at the Mangalore Women Police Station alleging that the Petitioner established physical relations based on a false promise of marriage.

The Petitioner sought quashing of the FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC).

The Court applied Section 69 (sexual intercourse on the basis of deceitful means/promise to marry) and Section 115(2) of the BNS, 2023.

It relied on the established principle that there is a distinction between a "false promise" (made with deceitful intent at inception) and a "breach of promise" (made in good faith but not fulfilled due to subsequent circumstances) as held in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court further applied the "misconception of fact" doctrine, noting that consent is only vitiated if the promise was a mere ruse to satisfy lust.

Finally, it invoked the criteria for quashing FIRs as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

The Court observed that the relationship was long-term (two years) and purely consensual, characterized by cohabitation and "sexual escapades" in Ireland.

It noted that the Complainant was a mature adult who was already married when the relationship began, making an initial promise of marriage legally unenforceable at that stage.

There was no evidence of "deception at inception"; rather, the allegations pointed to a relationship that simply ran its course and ended in heartbreak, which the law does not criminalize.

The Court found that the Complainant’s claim—that the Petitioner forced her to seek a divorce—was factually incorrect as the divorce process preceded their intimacy.

Following the logic in Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reasoned that retrospective branding of consensual intimacy as "rape" or "deceit" after a breakup is a gross abuse of the legal process.

The Court concluded that the criminal machinery was being used as a "weapon in private disputes" and for "personal vendetta".

Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 106/2024 and the related proceedings pending before the III JMFC Court, Mangalore.