The Madras High Court has affirmed that when a criminal complaint under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita arises from a consensual adult relationship that culminates in marriage, continued prosecution serves no public purpose and constitutes an abuse of process. This ruling clarifies the judicial approach to cases where the complainant voluntarily withdraws and the parties reconcile.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner and the defacto complainant were classmates at Sindhu College, Poonamallee, from 2018. Their friendship evolved into a consensual romantic relationship, including physical intimacy over several years. A photograph posted by the petitioner on Facebook led to family intervention, which ultimately resulted in mutual family approval and an engagement, with marriage planned after three years. The relationship continued uninterrupted until September 30, 2025, when the complainant objected to a further delay in marriage, leading to a complaint under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alleging sexual intercourse without consent.
Procedural History
- March 2025: Crime No.30 of 2025 registered at W33 Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai
- December 2025: Petitioner filed Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking quash of proceedings
- January 2026: Petitioner and complainant married at Sree Guruvayoorappan Temple, Avadi, and registered the marriage at SRO Virugambakkam on January 30, 2026
- March 2026: Both parties appeared before the High Court, submitted affidavits and a joint compromise memo
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of Crime No.30 of 2025 on grounds that the complaint arose from a consensual relationship now resolved through marriage, and that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 69 of the BNS permits quashing of criminal proceedings when the complainant, a major adult, voluntarily withdraws the complaint after marrying the accused, and both affirm that the relationship was consensual and now harmonious.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on the principle that criminal proceedings involving private wrongs between consenting adults may be quashed where the parties have reconciled and the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the matter. Cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that the case fell within the category of offences where public interest is minimal and private settlement is legitimate. Emphasized that the complainant was a graduate and fully aware of her actions, and that marriage extinguished any claim of non-consent.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor acknowledged the marriage and withdrawal but argued that Section 69 BNS is a non-bailable, cognizable offence involving sexual autonomy, and that the state’s interest in prosecuting such offences cannot be overridden by private compromise. Contended that allowing quashing in such cases may set a precedent undermining deterrence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of Section 69 BNS, which criminalizes sexual intercourse without the woman’s consent. It noted that the complainant was a major, educated adult who had engaged in a prolonged, consensual relationship with the petitioner. The Court emphasized that consent is not static and must be assessed in context. The subsequent marriage, registered and acknowledged by both parties, demonstrated a voluntary and enduring resolution of the underlying dispute.
"Both the petitioner and the defacto complainant are major and graduates having conscious and consensus relationship. Now the petitioner and the defacto complainant got married and their marriage certificate produced. Further, the defacto complainant is not willing to proceed with the case and they are living happily as husband and wife."
The Court held that the initiation of proceedings after marriage, when the complainant has unequivocally withdrawn her complaint and affirmed her consent, transforms the matter from a public wrong into a private reconciliation. The continuation of prosecution would serve no legitimate public purpose and would amount to an abuse of process of law. The Court distinguished this from cases involving coercion, minors, or non-consensual acts, noting that here, the complainant’s agency and subsequent actions negated any criminal intent.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that when a consensual adult relationship culminates in marriage and the complainant withdraws the complaint, proceedings under Section 69 BNS may be quashed as an abuse of process. The case in Crime No.30 of 2025 was quashed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Marriage Can Extinguish Criminal Liability in Consensual Cases
- Practitioners may now invoke this precedent to seek quashing of BNS Section 69 cases where the complainant and accused marry post-filing
- Affidavits and marriage certificates must be filed to establish voluntary reconciliation
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to show coercion or lack of consent despite marriage
Consent Must Be Evaluated Dynamically
- Courts will now consider the evolution of relationships, not just the moment of alleged offence
- A complainant’s subsequent conduct - including marriage - can negate the mens rea required for non-consent
- This does not apply to cases involving minors, power imbalances, or coercion
Abuse of Process Doctrine Gains Clarity
- Quashing under Section 528 BNSS is now explicitly available for private, consensual offences resolved through marriage
- Prosecutors must assess whether public interest remains after reconciliation
- This reinforces Bhajan Lal principles in the context of the new BNS framework
