Can a Consensual Relationship Become a Criminal Offence Because Marriage Never Happened?

Can a relationship that continues for years become a criminal offence simply because the couple ultimately does not marry? Does the failure of a relationship establish that a promise of marriage was dishonest from the beginning?

These questions came before the Karnataka High Court in a significant judgement concerning Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

On 16 October 2026, Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of having sexual relations with a woman on the false promise of marriage. The Court found that the allegations, considered in the context of the parties’ long-standing relationship, did not establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against him.

The judgement is significant because it draws attention to an important distinction in criminal law: a relationship that ends without marriage is not, by that fact alone, proof that the promise to marry was dishonest from the outset.

At the same time, the ruling does not mean that a prolonged relationship automatically excludes criminal liability. Where the evidence establishes deception or a promise made without any genuine intention of fulfilling it, the law may still apply.

The decision offers an important perspective on the interpretation of Section 69 BNS and the circumstances in which a failed romantic relationship may, or may not, give rise to criminal prosecution.

What Is Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

Section 69 of the BNS specifically addresses sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a promise of marriage made without any intention of fulfilling that promise.

The provision states that a person who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman through such means, where the conduct does not amount to rape, may face imprisonment of up to ten years and a fine.

The section recognises that sexual relationships may be initiated or continued through deception. However, the mere fact that a marriage does not take place does not, by itself, establish the offence.

The central question is whether the alleged promise was dishonest when it was made or whether the relationship subsequently broke down because of changing circumstances.

This distinction is crucial when courts examine allegations under Section 69 BNS false promise of marriage cases.

What Must Be Established Under Section 69 BNS?

The prosecution must establish the essential elements of the offence, including:

• Sexual Intercourse: The conduct must fall within the scope of the provision.
• Deceitful Means or a False Promise of Marriage: The allegation must involve the type of deception covered by Section 69.
• Dishonest Intention: In a false-promise-to-marry allegation, the promise must have been made without an intention to fulfil it.
• A Legally Sustainable Prosecution: The allegations and supporting material must disclose the ingredients of the offence.

A subsequent refusal to marry may be relevant to the surrounding circumstances, but it does not automatically establish that the original promise was fraudulent.

The distinction between a dishonest promise and a relationship that later fails remains central to the legal analysis.

Background of the Case: Two Doctors in a Long-Term Relationship

The case, Dr Ramdas @ Ramdas Patil v. State of Karnataka & Anr., arose from a relationship between two medical professionals who first met in 2017.

According to the case records, the parties developed a romantic relationship, and their consensual physical relationship began in June 2019. It continued until November 2023.

Following a brief separation, the relationship resumed in September 2024.

On 15 March 2025, the woman lodged a police complaint alleging that the doctor had established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage but later refused to marry her because she belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

The complaint led to the registration of a criminal case under Section 69 and Section 115(2) of the BNS, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The police subsequently filed a chargesheet on 13 May 2025.

The proceedings were registered as Special Case No. 88 of 2025 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru.

The doctor then approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings.

Why Did the Doctor Approach the Karnataka High Court?

The doctor’s principal argument was that the relationship had continued consensually for several years and that the parties had voluntarily resumed it even after their separation.

According to his defence, the allegations did not establish that he had entered the relationship with a dishonest intention to deceive the woman by making a promise of marriage that he never intended to fulfil.

The case therefore required the Court to examine whether the allegations, even when considered in the context of the relationship described in the complaint, disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.

The question was not simply whether the parties ultimately married. It was whether the alleged conduct satisfied the legal requirements necessary to sustain criminal prosecution.

Karnataka High Court’s Observations on Section 69 BNS

Justice M. Nagaprasanna examined the nature and duration of the relationship and the allegations made in the complaint.

The Court emphasised that Section 69 BNS cannot be invoked merely because a consensual relationship has broken down or because a marriage contemplated by the parties has not taken place.

The judgement observed:

“The subject case becomes a classic illustration of abuse and misuse of Section 69 of the BNS, which is now mushrooming in courts. All consensual acts between the accused and the victim for years together are now projected to become ingredients of Section 69.”

The Court concluded that the circumstances disclosed in the case did not justify continuing the prosecution.

It therefore exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and quashed the criminal proceedings.

A Failed Relationship Is Not Automatically a False Promise

The Court’s reasoning highlights the difference between a promise that was dishonest from the beginning and a relationship that subsequently deteriorated.

A person may genuinely contemplate marriage when entering a relationship, only for the relationship to end later. The fact that marriage does not ultimately occur cannot, without more, establish that the original promise was fraudulent.

Conversely, a person who makes a promise of marriage without any genuine intention of fulfilling it and uses that promise to obtain sexual relations may attract criminal liability if the statutory requirements are satisfied.

The decisive issue is the alleged deception and the intention accompanying the promise, not merely the eventual outcome of the relationship.

This distinction is particularly important in prosecutions under Section 69 BNS, where courts must examine the allegations and evidence rather than treating every failed relationship as a criminal offence.

Supreme Court Precedents on False Promises of Marriage

In reaching its conclusion, the Karnataka High Court referred to earlier Supreme Court decisions dealing with consent, false promises of marriage and the distinction between a genuine relationship and one founded on deception.

The judgement specifically referred to Pramod Kumar Navratna while discussing the requirement that a promise of marriage must have been made without an intention of fulfilling it from the outset.

The Court reiterated the principle that a consensual relationship that subsequently turns sour does not, by that fact alone, constitute a false promise of marriage.

The broader legal approach requires courts to distinguish between two different situations.

1. A Promise Made Dishonestly From the Beginning

Where the circumstances and evidence establish that a person never intended to marry and made the promise to induce sexual relations, criminal liability may arise under the applicable law.

2. A Relationship That Genuinely Develops but Eventually Fails

Where the parties enter a relationship consensually and the relationship later breaks down, the failure to marry does not automatically establish criminal deception.

This distinction prevents the outcome of a relationship from being treated as conclusive proof of the intention with which it began.

However, the existence of a long relationship is not an absolute defence. Each case must be assessed on its own facts, including the nature of the alleged promise, the circumstances in which consent was given and the material available to the investigating agency.

Dishonest Promise vs. Failed Relationship: Key Legal Distinction

Legal Significance of the Karnataka High Court Judgement

The decision highlights the importance of examining the intention behind an alleged promise of marriage rather than treating the failure of a relationship as conclusive proof of criminal deception.

It also underscores the need to assess the facts of each case before continuing a prosecution under Section 69 BNS.

At the same time, the judgment does not establish that every long-term consensual relationship is immune from criminal prosecution. Where the evidence supports an allegation of deliberate deception, the applicable criminal law may still operate.

The legal distinction remains between a promise that was dishonest when made and a genuine relationship that ultimately did not result in marriage.

Why the Commencement Date of Section 69 BNS Mattered

An important aspect of the judgment was the timing of the introduction of Section 69 BNS.

The provision came into force on 1 July 2024, whereas the relationship between the parties had begun several years earlier.

The Court took note of this chronology while examining the allegations. By the time Section 69 came into force, the parties had already been in a relationship for years.

This raised an important question concerning the application of a newly introduced criminal provision to conduct occurring across different periods.

Under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, a person cannot be convicted of an offence for an act that did not constitute an offence when it was committed, nor can a greater penalty be imposed than the one applicable at the time of the offence.

The temporal issue must nevertheless be considered carefully. The mere fact that a relationship began before 1 July 2024 does not automatically determine the legal treatment of every subsequent act. The dates and nature of the alleged conduct, along with the applicable statutory provisions, remain relevant.

In the present case, the Court considered the history of the relationship alongside the other circumstances and found that the allegations did not sustain the prosecution.

Why the Charges Under Section 115(2) BNS Were Also Quashed

The criminal case was not confined to Section 69 BNS. The doctor was also accused of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 115(2) of the BNS.

The High Court examined the material relating to this allegation, including the medical report.

It found that the report did not disclose injuries supporting the allegation in the manner required to sustain the charge.

Consequently, the Court found no sufficient basis to allow the proceedings under this provision to continue.

This aspect of the decision demonstrates the importance of examining the supporting material for each alleged offence separately. The existence of one allegation does not automatically establish the ingredients of another.

What Did the Court Decide About the SC/ST Act Charges?

The complaint also invoked Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

These provisions address specific forms of conduct involving members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and must be applied according to their respective statutory ingredients.

The Court examined the allegations in the context of the parties’ relationship and found that the material did not establish the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged under these provisions.

The proceedings under the SC/ST Act were therefore also quashed.

The ruling should not be interpreted as suggesting that allegations involving caste-based discrimination or sexual misconduct are inherently weak. Such allegations must be assessed according to the applicable law and the evidence available in each case.

The Court’s conclusion was based on its examination of the particular allegations and circumstances before it.

Explanatory Table: Laws and Provisions Considered in the Judgment

Note: The IPC provisions are discussed in the context of earlier judicial precedents. The applicable law in an individual case depends on the date and nature of the alleged conduct and the relevant statutory provisions.

Case Details: Dr. Ramdas @ Ramdas Patil v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Key Legal Takeaways From the Karnataka High Court Judgment

The judgment offers several important lessons for understanding Section 69 BNS and allegations involving a false promise of marriage.

1. A Relationship Ending Without Marriage Does Not Automatically Establish an Offence

The failure of a relationship is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that a promise of marriage was dishonest when made.

The prosecution must establish the ingredients of the offence under the applicable law.

2. Intention at the Time of the Promise Is Crucial

The distinction between a genuine promise that is not ultimately fulfilled and a promise made dishonestly from the beginning is central to the legal analysis.

Courts must examine the surrounding circumstances and the available evidence to determine whether the allegation satisfies the statutory requirements.

3. A Long Relationship Is Relevant but Not an Absolute Defence

The duration and history of a relationship may be important in assessing the allegation of deception. However, a lengthy relationship does not automatically rule out criminal liability if the evidence establishes the required elements of an offence.

4. Section 69 BNS Must Be Applied According to Its Statutory Requirements

The provision is intended to address sexual intercourse obtained through the specified forms of deception. It cannot be applied solely because a couple ultimately does not marry.

5. Each Criminal Charge Must Be Examined Separately

The Court also examined the allegations under Section 115(2) BNS and the SC/ST Act. Its decision illustrates why the ingredients of each alleged offence must be assessed independently.

6. High Courts Can Quash Proceedings That Abuse the Judicial Process

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of a court and secure the ends of justice.

Where the allegations and available material do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences, the High Court may exercise this jurisdiction in an appropriate case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a Consensual Relationship Lasting Seven Years Become a Criminal Offence Under Section 69 BNS?

The duration of a relationship does not, by itself, determine criminal liability. Section 69 BNS applies when its statutory requirements concerning sexual intercourse through deceitful means or a promise of marriage made without an intention to fulfil it are satisfied.

In Dr. Ramdas @ Ramdas Patil v. State of Karnataka & Anr., the Karnataka High Court found that the allegations, considered in the context of the parties’ long-term relationship, did not establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

What Is the Punishment Under Section 69 BNS?

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, provides for imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to ten years, along with a fine, where the offence is established.

Is Refusing to Marry After a Consensual Relationship a Criminal Offence?

Not automatically. A subsequent refusal to marry does not, by itself, establish that the original promise was dishonest. The circumstances in which the promise was made, the intention behind it and the available evidence are important in determining whether the conduct falls within Section 69 BNS.

Does a Long-Term Relationship Always Protect a Person From Prosecution?

No. A long-term relationship is not an automatic defence. If the evidence establishes that a promise of marriage was made without any intention of fulfilling it and the other statutory requirements are met, prosecution may still be possible.

The Karnataka High Court’s decision turned on the particular facts and allegations before it.

Why Did the Karnataka High Court Quash the Doctor’s Criminal Case?

The Court found that the allegations did not establish the essential ingredients of Section 69 BNS. It also found insufficient support for the charge under Section 115(2) BNS and concluded that the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act were not established.

The Court therefore quashed the proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

When Did Section 69 BNS Come Into Force?

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Section 69, came into force on 1 July 2024. The date is relevant when examining allegations involving conduct that occurred before and after the provision came into force.

Conclusion: Criminal Law Must Distinguish Deception From a Failed Relationship

The Karnataka High Court’s judgment in Dr. Ramdas @ Ramdas Patil v. State of Karnataka & Anr. reinforces an important principle: criminal liability cannot be established merely by pointing to the fact that a relationship ended without marriage.

Section 69 BNS addresses sexual intercourse involving specified forms of deception. Its application requires an examination of the alleged promise, the intention accompanying it and the other statutory requirements.

By quashing the proceedings against the doctor, the Court emphasised that the criminal justice system must distinguish between a relationship that fails and one allegedly founded on deliberate deception.

The ruling does not diminish the seriousness of genuine allegations of sexual exploitation. Instead, it underscores the need to assess each case on its facts and apply the law according to its statutory requirements.

Ultimately, the failure of a relationship is not conclusive proof of criminal deception; the essential ingredients of the alleged offence must be established in accordance with law.

Key Takeaways: Section 69 BNS False Promise of Marriage

• Karnataka High Court Judgment: In Dr. Ramdas @ Ramdas Patil v. State of Karnataka & Anr., the Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of sexual relations on a false promise of marriage.
• Long-Term Consensual Relationship: The Court observed that a consensual relationship that continues for years does not automatically become a criminal offence merely because the couple does not marry.
• Section 69 BNS Explained: Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, criminalises sexual intercourse through specified deceitful means or a promise of marriage made without the intention of fulfilling it, where the conduct does not amount to rape.
• Intention Behind the Promise Matters: A crucial legal distinction exists between a promise made dishonestly from the beginning and a genuine relationship that subsequently breaks down.
• Refusal to Marry Is Not Automatically Criminal: The failure of a relationship or a subsequent refusal to marry does not, by itself, establish criminal deception under Section 69 BNS.
• Facts of the Case: The parties, both medical professionals, had been in a relationship since 2017. Their relationship and subsequent complaint were examined by the Court in determining whether the alleged offences were legally sustainable.
• Other Criminal Charges: The Court also examined allegations under Section 115(2) BNS and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, finding insufficient grounds to sustain the proceedings.
• High Court’s Inherent Powers: The Court exercised its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to quash the criminal proceedings and prevent abuse of the judicial process.
• Section 69 BNS Effective Date: Section 69 BNS came into force on 1 July 2024. The timing of the alleged conduct is relevant when considering the application of criminal law.
• Important Legal Principle: The judgment highlights that criminal prosecution must be based on the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, rather than the mere breakdown of a consensual relationship.

Legal Disclaimer

The judgment does not establish that every long-term relationship is immune from prosecution. Each case depends on its facts, the available evidence and the applicable law.

• Can Police Force a Man to Marry Under Section 69 BNS? Supreme Court Law Explained (2026 Guide)
• Section 69 BNS vs Rape Law: False Promise of Marriage, Consent & Criminal Liability Explained
• Supreme Court on Section 69 BNS: Broken Promise to Marry Is Not Automatically a Crime
• Business Dispute Turned Into a Criminal FIR? How to Quash It (Section 528 BNSS)
• Married Woman, False Promise of Marriage & Section 69 BNS: Himachal Pradesh High Court Ruling