Courts not a stage for vendetta over failed relationships, rules Karnataka high court

Bengaluru: If every broken relationship were to be clothed in the garb of criminality, the courts would transform into forums of personal vendetta rather than forums of justice, the Karnataka high court has observed.It made the remark in a recent judgment while quashing investigation against a software professional hailing from Surathkal, Dakshina Kannada district. The complainant alleged that she had been cheated by the petitioner — the software professional — on the promise of marriage. Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) punishes the offence of inducing women to engage in sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including by giving false promises of marriage.
"Time and again, the Supreme Court has clarified that consensual relationships between adults cannot be retroactively criminalised 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, a 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," Justice M Nagaprasanna observed in his order while allowing the plea filed by the 35-year-old petitioner.The narrative in this case began in Ireland. In Aug 2021, the petitioner met the complainant when he was pursuing his master's degree in international management at the National University of Ireland. She too was studying there. Their friendship turned into a relationship.The petitioner got a job as well, and from Dec 2022, the couple started living together. However, in mid-2024, when the petitioner came to know that the complainant had been married and had a seven-year-old son, their relationship began to sour. On Oct 19, 2024, she came back to India and registered a complaint against him at the women's police station in Mangaluru for offences punishable under Sections 69 and 115(2) of BNS, alleging that he had cheated her on the promise of marriage. The petitioner challenged the FIR, and on Jan 16, 2025, the high court granted a stay on the investigation.According to him, the complainant, who is five years older than him, has alleged that because of him, she sought divorce from her husband, even though that relationship had soured long back. He claimed that the physical relationship between them was consensual and that there was no promise of marriage, as claimed by her. On the other hand, the complainant insisted that the physical relationship between them was based on the promise of marriage held out by him.Justice Nagaprasanna noted that it spoke about companionship, cohabitation, shared domesticity, and consensual intimacy extending over two years, all in Ireland, and not coercion, deception at inception, or force, as alleged by the complainant.What followed was not an allegation of violence but an allegation of betrayal. Therefore, it was not a case of having sexual intercourse on deceit from inception. "It is trite that the law does not criminalise heartbreak," the judge added, quashing the FIR registered against the petitioner.