Consensual Physical Relationship Following Breach of Promise to Marry Does Not Constitute Rape Under Section 69 BNS

In brief

The question

1. Whether a consensual sexual relationship maintained over a prolonged period can be categorized as rape/exploitation under Section 69 BNS if the promise to marry is subsequently breached.

The court held

The court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the relationship was consensual and did not amount to criminal exploitation.

It also directed

The court ruled that criminal proceedings for soured relationships must not be used to abuse the process of law.

The appeal was allowed, and the order dated July 5, 2025, along with the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 1283 of 2025, were quashed.

01Facts

The appellants (Kapil Som and his father) sought to quash an order dated July 5, 2025, and proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 1283 of 2025.

¶ 2

The prosecutrix alleged that in October 2022, after meeting Kapil Som on Instagram, he induced her to Meerut under a promise of marriage.

¶ 3, 20

She claimed he established physical relations against her will, staged a fake marriage on a 50-rupee stamp paper, and lived as husband and wife until December 2023.

¶ 3, 20

She further alleged that Kapil’s father raped her and that both appellants swindled money and used caste-based slurs ("Chamariya") when she insisted on a formal marriage.

¶ 3

An FIR was lodged on May 1, 2025, under Sections 352, 351(2), 69 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) and various sections of the SC/ST Act.

¶ 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether a consensual sexual relationship maintained over a prolonged period can be categorized as rape/exploitation under Section 69 BNS if the promise to marry is subsequently breached.

¶ 11, 23

ii.2. Whether Section 69 of the BNS can be applied retrospectively to acts allegedly committed between 2022 and 2023.

¶ 22

iii.3. Whether the allegations satisfy the essential ingredients for offenses under the SC/ST Act.

¶ 31

03Law Applied

Section 90 of the IPC regarding consent given under "misconception of fact".

¶ 11

Section 375 of the IPC.

¶ 12

Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, distinguishing a "false promise" (no intention to marry from the outset) from a "breach of promise" (inability to marry later).

¶ 13

Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, establishing that prolonged consensual relationships without protest suggest a lack of "misconception of fact".

¶ 17, 25-26

The principle of prospective application of criminal statutes regarding the BNS.

¶ 22

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 352 Section 351 Section 69

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 161 Section 164

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 90 Section 375 Section 376

04Reasoning

The court observed that the prosecutrix, a 24-year-old educated major, entered the relationship voluntarily via Instagram and lived with the appellant for over a year without raising an alarm.

¶ 21

It found no evidence that the appellant lacked the intent to marry from the inception; rather, the relationship appeared consensual and driven by mutual affection.

¶ 21, 24

The court noted that a subsequent refusal to marry due to caste differences constitutes a breach of promise, not a criminal deception.

¶ 24

Significantly, the court held that Section 69 of the BNS could not be applied retrospectively to acts occurring in 2022-2023, as the BNS only came into force on July 1, 2024.

¶ 22

Regarding the SC/ST Act, the court found the allegations lacked the necessary specificity of public humiliation or slurs required by law.

¶ 31