Prolonged consensual relationship without protest negates the ingredient of "false promise of marriage" under Section 69 BNS.

The petitioner sought the quashing of FIR No. 337/2025 registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complainant alleged that she entered into a consensual physical relationship with the petitioner in August 2023 based on his promise of marriage.

The relationship continued for nearly two years, during which they had sexual encounters at various locations and recorded videos.

Following the death of the complainant's brother in March 2025, the petitioner allegedly refused to marry her, citing family opposition.

The complainant lodged the FIR on 30.04.2025, approximately one month after their last sexual encounter on 27.03.2025.

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalizes sexual intercourse by deceitful means or a promise to marry without the intention of fulfilling it.

Landmark guidelines for quashing FIRs established in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal.

A prolonged relationship indicates consent rather than a misconception of fact, as held in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra.

Caution against giving consensual relationships a "color of false pretext" when they turn sour, as per Bishwajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal.

The court observed that the physical relationship began in August 2023 and continued for nearly two years without the complainant initiating legal action despite the petitioner repeatedly deferring the marriage.

The court reasoned that if the relationship were truly based on a false promise, the complainant would not have continued the relationship or allowed it to persist after the initial breach of promise.

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court noted that the "longer the duration of the physical relationship... the more it is indicative of a consensual relationship rather than one based on a false promise".

The court found that the central ingredients of Section 69 BNS—specifically the "deceitful means" or "lack of intention" at the inception—were absent, as the conduct of the parties suggested a mutual, consensual affair that only became litigious after the relationship deteriorated.

The court answered that a long-term consensual relationship cannot be retrospectively labeled as "deceit" simply because it failed to culminate in marriage.

The petition was allowed, and FIR No. 337 of 2025, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed.