A failed relationship cannot automatically be treated as deceit and become the basis for criminal proceedings, the Bombay High Court has held while quashing an FIR against a doctor accused of having sexual intercourse with a woman on a false promise of marriage.
The Indian Express reported that Justice Abhay J Mantri, sitting at the Kolhapur circuit bench, allowed a plea filed by the nearly 45-year-old doctor on September 4 and set aside the criminal case registered against him under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with sexual intercourse through deceitful means.
The case involved a 49-year-old widowed doctor who alleged that the man had maintained a sexual relationship with her between January 2019 and June 2023 by allegedly promising to divorce his wife and marry her.
The High Court, however, found that the material before it did not establish that the alleged promise of marriage was false from the outset.
“The object of the legislature was to punish deceit and not disappointment. Moreover, every romantic failure cannot be painted as deceit,” Justice Mantri observed, according to the report.
What was the case?
According to The Indian Express, the two doctors had known each other since the early 2000s. The complainant’s husband died in an accident in 2011, while the petitioner was married.
The complainant alleged that the two entered into physical relationship in January 2019 and continued it until June 2023. She claimed that the relationship was based on his assurance that he would divorce his wife and marry her. The relationship subsequently deteriorated.
The court noted that the two had no contact from September 2024 until the FIR was registered. The complainant attributed the delay to alleged threats by the man to kill her and her children.
The doctor approached the High Court seeking to have the criminal proceedings quashed.
What does Section 69 of BNS require?
A key issue before the High Court was whether the allegations satisfied the requirements of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The provision deals with sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, including by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling it.
The High Court said the prosecution must establish that the promise was “false from the very beginning”.
According to The Indian Express, Justice Mantri observed that if the promise was genuine when made but the relationship subsequently failed, that alone would not establish the offence.
The court therefore distinguished between “deceit at the inception of a relationship and disappointment arising from its eventual breakdown”.
Court examined WhatsApp chats
The High Court also examined WhatsApp conversations between the two doctors. According to The Indian Express, the chats did not show that the petitioner had promised the complainant that he would marry her.
Instead, the conversations indicated that the two had jointly searched for a marriage proposal for the complainant.
The court also referred to a conversation in which the complainant appeared to acknowledge that the man might continue living with his wife, while saying that she wanted him.
The High Court found that the exchanges were more consistent with a consensual relationship than one induced through coercion, fraud or misrepresentation.
‘Criminal law must remain a shield against fraud’
The High Court stressed that criminal law should not be used to settle personal disputes arising from the breakdown of a relationship.
The court said it had to ensure that “criminal law remains a shield against fraud and not a weapon for settling personal disputes over failure of relationship.”
It also relied on earlier Supreme Court decisions holding that a breakup between consenting adults cannot, by itself, justify criminal proceedings.
The court noted that the complainant had not lodged any separate complaint regarding the alleged threats before the FIR.
On the material available before it, the High Court concluded that the relationship appeared to have been consensual and voluntary and was not shown to have involved coercion, fraud or misrepresentation.
FIR quashed
The High Court ultimately held that the ingredients of an offence under Section 69 BNS had not been established. Since there was no sufficient material to show that the alleged promise of marriage was false from its inception, continuing the criminal prosecution would amount to a “gross abuse of process of law”, the court held.
The FIR and the resulting criminal proceedings were accordingly quashed.