-
by sayum
18 February 2026 10:41 AM
“Criminal law is not an instrument for resolving emotional fallouts or attributing moral blame arising from consensual acts between adults” - On 12 November 2025, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) addressing the misuse of criminal provisions in cases of consensual premarital relationships that later end in discord.
Justice B. Pugalendhi allowed the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and quashed the prosecution against the petitioner, holding that the prolonged relationship between the parties did not amount to criminal conduct, and there was no material to support a claim of deception at inception.
The petitioner had been charged under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)—provisions relating to sexual intercourse by deceitful means and criminal intimidation, respectively.
“No Evidence That Promise to Marry Was Deceitful at the Outset”: Section 69 BNS Not Attracted
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner induced the complainant, a fellow law student and later a practicing advocate, into a sexual relationship from 2020 to 2025, based on a false promise of marriage. The relationship allegedly began with an incident on 11 March 2020, and continued over several years, ending when the petitioner refused marriage in January 2025, allegedly citing caste differences and threatening her.
The complainant accused the petitioner of violating Section 69 BNS, which penalizes sexual intercourse by deceitful means or based on a promise to marry without intention to fulfil it.
However, the High Court noted:
“The essential ingredient of this offence is that the accused must have had sexual intercourse by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling the same.”
Relying on the seminal decision in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [(2013) 7 SCC 675], the Court underscored that mere failure to marry is not enough; there must be evidence of mala fide intent at the inception.
Further citing Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra [2024 INSC 897], the Court observed:
“The relationship continued for nine long years… such a prolonged continuation… renders the plea that consent was under misconception of fact implausible.”
In the present case, the Court held that the five-year consensual relationship between educated adults was itself evidence that there was no fraudulent intent at the beginning. The complainant, being a practicing lawyer, was fully aware of the implications of her actions.
“Premarital Intimacy Not Per Se Illegal”: Court Warns Against Criminalising Failed Relationships
Reaffirming the legal boundary between breach of trust and criminal misconduct, the Court relied on multiple recent decisions, including:
“A consensual relationship turning sour… cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State.”
“Every consensual relationship… cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry.”
Noting that the criminal process is increasingly invoked after private relationships deteriorate, the Court cautioned:
“Such matters, rooted in personal association and mutual choice, do not ordinarily warrant criminal prosecution.”
Justice Pugalendhi added a candid observation on the changing nature of personal relationships:
“It is a matter of fact that, in present times, instances of premarital intimacy between consenting adults are not uncommon… The criminal process cannot be used to moralise private conduct or convert personal disappointment into litigation.”
“Threat Allegations Do Not Amount to Criminal Intimidation”: Section 351(2) BNS Also Not Made Out
As for the charge under Section 351(2) BNS, which pertains to criminal intimidation, the Court dismissed the accusation of threats in January 2025, observing that the parties had been in a voluntary relationship for years.
Referring to Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2024 INSC 879], the Court held:
“There cannot be a case of criminal intimidation… when all along there was cordiality between them and it was only when the appellant got married… that the complainant filed a complaint.”
Applying the same logic, the Madras High Court concluded that the alleged threats were not independently verifiable, and were inextricably tied to a personal breakdown, not criminal conduct.
“Abuse of Process of Law”: Proceedings Quashed to Prevent Misuse of Criminal Justice System
Ultimately, the Court found that continuation of the criminal case would constitute abuse of process, observing:
“Having exercised that choice [to be in a relationship], it is not open to either to later portray private discord as criminal misconduct… The growing tendency to invoke the criminal process in private relationship disputes must be checked.”
The Court emphasised that criminal law must not be weaponised to punish failed personal expectations, especially when both parties are consenting, mature adults.
The ruling in Saravanan C v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another stands as a firm reaffirmation of the principle that criminal liability under Section 69 BNS requires proof of deception at the outset, and that emotional or relational breakdowns alone cannot justify prosecution.
By quashing the proceedings, the Madras High Court sent a strong message that while the law protects against actual exploitation or coercion, it must not be misused to retrospectively criminalise personal choices.
This judgment is significant in the early jurisprudence developing under the BNS, 2023, especially in contexts where Section 69 BNS is sought to be invoked in failed relationships. Courts will continue to test whether such accusations meet the threshold of criminal intent and deception, or are merely reactions to personal disappointment.
Date of Decision: 12 November 2025
