The Madras High Court ruled that consensual adult relationships cannot be criminalised simply because they end in conflict. The court emphasized that criminal law should not be used to resolve emotional fallouts or failed romantic expectations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
TAMIL NADU: In a ruling reinforcing the distinction between consensual relationships and criminal misconduct, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has quashed criminal proceedings against a Dindigul man accused of engaging in a sexual relationship with a woman advocate on the alleged false promise of marriage.
Justice B. Pugalendhi held that a long-term, voluntary relationship cannot later be portrayed as deceitful or criminal unless there is clear evidence of dishonest intent from the very beginning.
Case Background
The petitioner, Saravanan C, had been booked under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which deal with sexual intercourse by deceitful means and criminal intimidation. The complaint was filed by Pothumponnu, a practising advocate in Dindigul, who alleged that Saravanan induced her into a sexual relationship in March 2020 by promising marriage. Their relationship reportedly continued for several years, after which he allegedly refused marriage, citing caste differences, and threatened her.
Saravanan, represented by advocate P. Sathish Kumar, denied any fraudulent intent and argued that the relationship was fully consensual. He contended that the complaint was filed only after the relationship soured, and that the complainant, being an educated adult, was fully aware of her choices.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, Justice Pugalendhi noted several key aspects:
1. Long-term consensual relationship undermines allegation of deceit
The court found that the relationship lasted from 2020 to 2025, indicating mutual consent rather than deception. There was no material to prove that the petitioner never intended to marry the complainant from the outset, which is a necessary ingredient for establishing an offence under Section 69 BNS.
2. Reliance on Supreme Court precedents
The judgment referenced important Supreme Court rulings, including:
- Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013)
- Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024)
These decisions clarify that only a promise of marriage made with dishonest* intent from the beginning amounts to an offence. A genuine relationship that later fails cannot be criminalized.
3. Failed relationships should not be “criminalised”
The judge echoed recent Supreme Court cautions, stating that not every failed romantic relationship deserves a criminal colour. Doing so:
- Misuses legal provisions
- Burdens courts with avoidable litigation
- Harms the reputation of the accused
4. No evidence of criminal intimidation
The allegation under Section 351(2) BNS for criminal intimidation was also found unsustainable. The court noted no credible threats or coercion that met the statutory threshold. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), the High Court stated that disputes arising after a relationship ends cannot be termed intimidation.
Justice Pugalendhi made a notable observation about evolving social norms, stressing that premarital intimacy between consenting adults is not uncommon. Courts, he said, must avoid moralising personal choices or turning emotional breakdowns into legal battles.
“The law is not an instrument for resolving emotional fallouts or attributing moral blame arising from consensual acts between adults,”
the court stated. Criminal intervention is justified only when consent is compromised by coercion, deceit, or incapacity—none of which were proven in this case.
Finding the continuation of the prosecution to be an abuse of the legal process, the High Court quashed all proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Dindigul. The ruling is expected to influence how similar cases involving broken relationships and allegations of promise-based consent are evaluated under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita framework.
Case Title:
Saravanan. C vs State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Crl.MP(MD)Nos. 9539, 9542 of 2025
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Extramarital Affair
