BNS Section 69 Not Retroactive; Long Consensual Relationship Without Protest Negates Rape Charge On False Promise Of Marriage: Allahabad High Court

"Treating every such refusal to marriage as vitiated consent would dilute the sanctity of Section 375 IPC and overburden the criminal justice system with cases arising from soured relationships rather than genuine sexual offences," Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a prolonged consensual physical relationship where the parties lived as husband and wife cannot be termed as rape on the pretext of a false promise of marriage.

A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that if criminality is attached to such long-term relationships after they turn sour, it would lead to serious consequences and the misuse of stringent criminal processes. The Court further clarified that Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) cannot be applied retrospectively to acts committed before the law came into force.

The case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by a 24-year-old woman against the appellant and his family members, alleging that they entered a relationship via Instagram in 2022. She claimed the appellant induced her into physical relations on a promise of marriage, performed a sham marriage on a stamp paper, and later abandoned her. She also leveled allegations of sexual assault against the appellant’s father and claimed they used caste-based slurs when she insisted on a formal marriage.

The primary question before the court was whether a long-term consensual relationship could be categorized as rape under the "misconception of fact" principle due to a subsequent breach of promise to marry. The court was also called upon to determine whether Section 69 of the BNS could be applied to incidents occurring between 2022 and 2023, and if the allegations met the threshold of the SC/ST Act.

Distinction Between False Promise And Breach Of Promise

The Court emphasized the critical legal distinction between a false promise made with the intent to deceive from the very inception and a mere breach of promise to marry. It noted that for consent to be vitiated under Section 90 of the IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused never intended to marry the victim from the start.

"To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it... The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act."

No Retrospective Application Of Section 69 BNS

The bench observed that the alleged relationship and incidents took place between October 2022 and December 2023, whereas the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) only came into effect on July 1, 2024. Justice Singh ruled that criminal statutes cannot be applied retrospectively to acts committed before their enforcement.

Court Clarifies BNS Section 69 Scope

The Court held that since the BNS was not in force during the period of the alleged offence, any section of the said Sanhita cannot affect the case retrospectively. It can only have a prospective effect, and thus, the charge under Section 69 of the BNS was not legally sustainable against the appellant.

Long Duration Of Relationship Indicates Consensuality

Reviewing the facts, the Court found it "surprising" that a 24-year-old major girl stayed with the appellant for 56 days and continued a relationship for over a year without any protest or complaint to the authorities. The bench noted that the prosecutrix's own family did not raise any objection during this period.

"The longer duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage."

Citing Apex Court Precedents On Consent

Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar and Mahesh Damu Khare, the High Court reiterated that a consensual sexual relationship followed by a subsequent refusal to marry does not render the accused liable for rape. The Court noted that the "sting of criminal culpability" is neutralized by a prolonged continuation of physical relations without demurral.

"A consensual sexual relationship followed by a subsequent refusal to marry does not render the accused liable for rape... mere breach of promise to marry, in absence of initial dishonest intent, cannot convert consensual physical relations into rape."

Failure To Make Out Case Under SC/ST Act

Regarding the allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Court found the claims of abuse and threats to be "too vague and general." It noted that the FIR lacked specific details regarding caste slurs made in public view to humiliate the victim.

Nutshell: Mere Mention Of Caste In Marriage Refusal Not An Offence

The Court observed that just mentioning caste differences while refusing marriage does not meet the legal requirements of the SC/ST Act. It held that for charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) to stand, there must be evidence of intentional insult or intimidation in a place within public view, which was absent in this case.

"The fact that the complainant continued to have a physical relationship for a long time without any insistence on marriage would indicate the unlikelihood of any such promise made by the appellant... it rather indicates that the relationship was a consensual one."

The Court concluded that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as no criminal liability could be attached to what was essentially a consensual relationship that turned sour. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the entire proceedings pending before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Moradabad.

Date of Decision: 26 May 2026