While flagging the increasing most flagrant misuse of the breach of promise of marriage provision under BNS Section 69, the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Harshdeep Girish Parlathaya vs State of Karnataka & Anr in Writ Petition No.35036 of 2024 (GM – RES) that was reserved on 24.02.2026 and then finally pronounced on 04.03.2026 granted relief to an employee of a private firm in a complaint lodged by his colleague. It was also made abundantly clear by the Karnataka High Court that the criminal justice system cannot be made a remedy for the emotional turmoil of failed relationships. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice M Nagaprasanna who authored this most commendable judgment minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that, “The litigation is with regard to misuse of Section 69 of BNS and mushrooming of cases before this court… and in all cases, where the relationship ends in a breakup, the man is in the lockup.”
We thus see that the Court stayed the proceedings against the petitioner, pending before the 41st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru till next hearing. The Karnataka High Court was hearing a writ petition seeking the quashing of an FIR that was registered under Sections 69 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 alleging that the petitioner had established physical relations with the complainant on the false promise of marriage. The petitioner from MP and the complainant got into a relationship for over a period of eight months. The Bench pointed out that though BNS Section 69 would punish a person having sexual intercourse with the victim on the promise of marriage, in the case at hand, there is no indication of sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage except that fact that it is an afterthought that springs in the complaint.
It is high time and open abuse of penal laws against men must be put to an end by putting permanent full stop to it! Why should a women have relationship with a men before marriage? Why despite the repeated abuse of marriage promise law as has been pointed out by the Karnataka High Court in this leading case should law not be amended to end this open rampant abuse of penal laws against men?
Before stating anything else, it is stated in this leading judgment that, “This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying to quash the Zero FIR dated 19.10.2024 registered as Crime No. 106/2024 by the Respondent No.1 I.E., Mangalore Women Police Station/1st Respondent against the Petitioner (Annexure A) under Section 69, 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 on the file of the III JMFC Court, Mangalore.”
At the very outset, this remarkable, robust, rational and recent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice M Nagaprasanna of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.106 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 69 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘BNS’), 2023.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages about the factual canvass stating in para 3 that, “THE FACTUAL CANVASS:
3.1. The narrative begins in Ireland. In August, 2021, the petitioner then pursuing his Masters Degree in International Management at the National University of Ireland met the 2nd respondent/complainant. She too was then navigating her academic journey. Friendship sprouted, affection followed. The camaraderie matured into physical relationship. By September, 2022 the petitioner had secured employment with Valeo Vision System. The complainant, despite earnest efforts had not secured employment. Proximity brought them closer, convenience matured into cohabitation. In December, 2022 they began living together, not as strangers bound by compulsion, but as consenting adults sharing companionship.
3.2. For two years, the two had several sexual escapades. The petitioner then comes to know that the 2nd respondent was already married and had a 7 years old child. The relationship between the petitioner and the complainant eventually soured. By mid 2024, communication frayed. Expectations collapsed. On 19-10-2024, upon returning to India, the complainant registered the subject complaint before the Women Police Station, Mangalore alleging that the petitioner had established physical relations with her on a false promise of marriage. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.106 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 69 and 115(2) of the BNS. Investigation would ensue. The petitioner calls in question the said crime in the subject petition.
3.3. On 16-01-2025, a coordinate Bench of this Court granted an interim order of stay, which is in subsistence even today. The matter is heard on an application filed by the State, seeking vacation of the interim order.”
While elaborating on the petitioner’s version, the Bench observes in para 4 that, “The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent for close to two years was purely on consensus. In the complaint, the complainant narrates that due to the relationship of the petitioner, the complainant had to apply and seek divorce from the hands of her husband. But, that is factually incorrect. The relationship between the complainant’s husband and the complainant had strained long ago. Divorce petition was pending even before the complainant met the petitioner and thereafter all the acts between the two were purely on consensus, but never on promise of marriage. Due to registration of complaint, the effect is that the petitioner lost his job in Ireland, as communication is sent by the complainant to the Company about registration of crime and today he is not getting any job for acts that have happened on consensus. Insofar as the complainant is concerned, the complainant has already moved on with another man. He would seek to place reliance upon certain posts on social media to demonstrate that the complainant has already moved to another relationship. Who has suffered in the bargain is the petitioner who lost his job and opportunity of getting a new job.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 8 that, “The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record. Therefore, they would not require reiteration, except skeletal reference to few dates. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent met in Ireland and were in a relationship from May 2022 till sometime in June 2024. Therefore, it was a relationship for over two years. Several acts of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, their squabbles, skirmishes in the relationship are all narrated in the petition, which would not become necessary to be noticed for consideration of the issue in the lis. By the time the petitioner met the complainant, the complainant was already married and had a 7 year old child. The marriage was said to be in doldrums and the complainant had already registered a petition for divorce with her husband. The divorce also is said to have been granted in the month of August 2023. It is then the relationship between petitioner and the complainant deepened and the two began to live-in under the same roof. Thereafter, the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant is said to have turned sore and eventually ended. It is then the complainant comes back to India and tries to contact the petitioner. The petitioner being evasive leads the complainant to register a complaint on the shores of this nation.”
Briefly stated, the Bench states in para 9 that, “Since the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint so registered on 19-10-2024 by the 2nd respondent, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It is narrated that all the incidents of sexual escapades between the two have happened in Ireland on the alleged assurance of marriage. In May 2022 even before the relationship between the two could blossom, the complainant had filed for divorce on mutual consent from her husband. Therefore, the allegation in the complaint that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant, led the complainant to file a divorce petition, is contrary to the facts. Divorce is granted later by the concerned Court on mutual consent would not mean that the petitioner is the reason for filing of the divorce petition. The petitioner first comes to India on 08-08-2024 and the complainant on 18-08-2024. The complainant is said to have contacted the petitioner only to receive pale replies or even no reply. The complainant further narrates that she indicated the relationship to the parents of the petitioner. Even then, nothing turned around. Therefore, the complaint comes to be registered. The complaint is lucid and vivid. The relationship between the two from December 2022, till the month of June, 2024 was on consensus at Ireland and never on the shores of this nation. Therefore, all that happened in Ireland between the two, which is ostensibly on consensus is complained of, before the jurisdictional Police Station in Mangalore.”
Notably, the Bench notes in para 10 that, “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. The complainant’s marriage had already reached the point of legal dissolution before the live-in arrangement deepened. The intimacy occurred in Ireland, the cohabitation occurred in Ireland, the shared life occurred in Ireland. What has followed is not an allegation of violence, but an allegation of betrayal. Therefore, it is not a case of having sexual intercourse on deceit from the inception, it is trite that “the law does not criminalize heart break”.”
Needless to say, the Bench states in para 11 that, “Time and again, the Apex Court has clarified that consensual relationships between adults cannot be retroactively criminalized, because one party withdraws from the relationship. A promise of marriage becomes “false” in law only when it is shown that the promise was a mere ruse, deceitful stratagem, never intended to be honoured. A subsequent change of mind, emotional incompatibility, familial opposition or mere reluctance does not transmute into criminal intent at inception. Jurisprudence is replete with the Apex Court consistently holding that consensual physical intimacy between adults, even if premised on expectation of marriage, does not become rape or its statutory equivalent unless, the promise was demonstrably false from the beginning.”
The relevant Apex Court rulings pointed out in this regard are: Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. The State of Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191 in para 11.1, Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1032 in para 11.2, XXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) 3 SCC 496 in para 11.3, Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025) 5 SCC 756 in para 11.4, Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528 in para 11.5, Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1258 in para 11.6, Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230 in para 11.7.
Briefly put, the Bench observes in para 14 that, “Additional materials placed before this Court indicate that the complainant has moved forward in life and entered into another relationship. While such developments are not determinative of guilt or innocence, they underscore the central reality that the subject case is a relationship that ran its course and ended. The criminal law is not designed to be invoked as a salve for emotional rupture. The Apex Court permits quashing at the stage of FIR where the allegations even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence; the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. The case at hand squarely falls within those categories. If every broken relationship were to be clothed in the garb of criminality, the Courts would transform into forum of personal vendetta, rather than forums of justice.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 15 holding that, “The criminal justice system an instrument of State power, it 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 into matrimony. To permit investigation in such circumstances would not advance justice, it would distort it.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 16 that, “Therefore, upon anxious consideration of facts, the complaint and the governing principle of law, this Court is of the considered view, that continuation of investigation even in Crime No.106 of 2024 would amount to an abuse of the process of the law and would occasion miscarriage of justice.”
Finally and resultantly, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 17 that, “For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) FIR in Crime No.106 of 2024 registered against the petitioner before Mangalore Women Police Station, Mangalore and pending before the III JMFC Court, Mangalore stands quashed.
Pending application if any, also stand disposed, as a consequence.”
Sanjeev Sirohi