The Karnataka High Court quashed rape proceedings against a man accused of a false promise of marriage under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, “The law does not criminalize heart break,” citing a consensual relationship.
KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings against a man accused of rape under false pretenses of marriage, stating that criminal law cannot be invoked simply due to the failure of a romantic relationship.
The Court emphasized that the complaint indicated a consensual relationship that lasted for a significant period. A writ petition was presented seeking to dismiss an FIR registered under Sections 69 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which alleged that the petitioner had engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant based on a false promise of marriage.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in a Single Judge Bench, remarked:
“The law does not criminalize heart break,” and asserted: “The criminal justice system, an instrument of State power, cannot be permitted to become a weapon in private disputes arising out of failed relationships. The facts, even if accepted in toto, disclose nothing beyond a relationship that did not culminate in matrimony. To permit investigation in such circumstances would not advance justice; it would distort it.”
ALSO READ; ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
Factual Background:
According to the case details, the petitioner and complainant met in Ireland while pursuing their respective studies. Their acquaintance evolved into a relationship that later progressed to a live-in arrangement. The complaint stated that they lived together and maintained a physical relationship for an extended period.
Notably, the complainant was already married and had a child when they began their relationship, although divorce proceedings with her husband had already commenced. Eventually, the relationship deteriorated, and upon returning to India, the complainant filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner had coerced her into a sexual relationship with the promise of marriage. This led to the registration of an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR in the High Court.
Observations of the Court:
The Court conducted a thorough examination of the complaint and the surrounding circumstances, noting that the narrative reflected a long-term consensual relationship between both parties. The Court pointed out that the complaint did not indicate coercion, deception at the relationship’s onset, or any force. Instead, it described a voluntary association characterized by companionship and cohabitation.
The Court noted,
“the complaint read in its entirety does not narrate coercion, deception at inception or force. It speaks of companionship, cohabitation, shared domesticity and consensual intimacy extending over 2 years.”
Additionally, the Court observed that the complaints stemmed from emotional disappointment following the relationship’s breakdown rather than indicating a criminal offense.
It remarked,
“what has followed is not an allegation of violence, but an allegation of betrayal,” reinforcing that “the law does not criminalize heart break.”
In analyzing the legal framework, the Court referenced multiple Supreme Court judgments that have consistently affirmed that consensual relationships between adults cannot be retrospectively criminalized merely due to a subsequent failure or a lack of marriage.
The Court reiterated the important distinction between a breach of promise and a false promise lacking genuine intention at the outset. It concluded that criminal liability can only arise if it is demonstrated that the promise of marriage was deceitful from the beginning, intended solely to induce consent for sexual relations.
The Court stressed that, when a relationship between consenting adults lasts over a significant period, the subsequent withdrawal cannot automatically turn earlier consensual intimacy into a criminal offense. Highlighting the broader ramifications of such prosecutions, the Court cautioned against using criminal law as a tool in personal disputes stemming from failed relationships, observing that if every broken relationship were treated as a criminal offense, “the Courts would transform into a forum of personal vendetta, rather than forums of justice.”
Ultimately, the Court determined that allowing investigations under such circumstances would constitute a misuse of the criminal justice system, fitting the criteria established by the Supreme Court for quashing criminal proceedings where the allegations, even if accepted as true, do not indicate a committed offense.
Given the facts and established legal principles regarding allegations based on a promise of marriage, the High Court concluded that the complaint did not contain the necessary elements of the alleged offense under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Consequently, the Court granted the writ petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner, stating that continuing the investigation would constitute an abuse of legal process.
Case Title: Harshdeep Girish Parlathaya v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE