The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that consensual romantic relationships between adults, even when accompanied by a promise of marriage, do not automatically constitute a criminal offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, unless it is established that the promise was false from its very inception. The Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, emphasizing that disputed questions of fact regarding intent and consent must be resolved at trial, not through inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mukesh Sonkar, is accused of having engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant, a 28-year-old woman who runs her own beauty parlour, under the false pretext of marriage. The complainant alleges that the petitioner induced her into physical relations between 21.08.2025 and 31.08.2025 by promising marriage, and thereafter refused to marry her, subjected her to assault, and threatened her with criminal intimidation. The allegations form the basis of FIR No. 1065/2025 registered at Police Station Supela, Durg, under Sections 69 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Key Facts
- The complainant and the petitioner were in a relationship for approximately three years, beginning in 2023
- The complainant is a major, educated, and financially independent woman
- The relationship was admitted by the complainant in the FIR as voluntary and consensual
- The FIR was registered on 10.09.2025, nearly ten days after the last alleged incident on 31.08.2025
- A medical examination report recorded minor injuries, but no serious harm
- The complainant has filed a similar FIR against another individual, Jagrit Sahu, for identical allegations during overlapping time periods
- The complainant failed to appear before the trial court for examination despite multiple summons and warrants issued
Procedural History
- 21.08.2025 to 31.08.2025: Alleged period of sexual relations and false promise of marriage
- 10.09.2025: FIR No. 1065/2025 registered at Police Station Supela, Durg
- 08.11.2025: Charge Sheet No. 1113/2025 filed by the police
- 11.11.2025: Order of cognizance passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg
- 03.12.2025: Charges framed against the petitioner under Sections 69 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- 13.04.2026: Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Argued that the relationship was consensual, with no evidence of a false promise of marriage from inception. Emphasized the complainant’s independence, delay in lodging FIR, failure to appear in court, and contradictory allegations against a second person as evidence of mala fide intent.
For the Respondent-State: Contended that the FIR and charge sheet disclose prima facie elements of the offence, including false promise of marriage and assault. Asserted that the medical report and victim’s statement provide sufficient grounds to proceed, and that factual disputes must be decided at trial.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of:
- FIR No. 1065/2025
- Charge Sheet No. 1113/2025
- Order of cognizance dated 11.11.2025
- Order framing charges dated 03.12.2025
- All criminal proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 359/2025
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising from the FIR, including the charge sheet, cognizance order, framing of charges, and pending trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a consensual sexual relationship between two adults, followed by a refusal to marry, can constitute an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in the absence of any material establishing that the promise of marriage was false from its very inception, and whether such proceedings can be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 at the pre-trial stage.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46 and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 to argue that a promise to marry, even if broken, does not attract criminal liability unless proven to be dishonest from the outset. It was submitted that the complainant’s own admission of a consensual, long-standing relationship, coupled with her failure to appear in court and the filing of a parallel FIR against another man, rendered the allegations inherently improbable and mala fide. The delay in lodging the FIR and absence of serious injuries further undermined the credibility of the prosecution case.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the FIR and charge sheet contain specific allegations of deception, physical relations on false pretences, assault, and intimidation, supported by medical evidence and the victim’s recorded statement. It was argued that the existence of a prima facie case was sufficient to justify continuation of proceedings, and that questions of consent, intent, and credibility are factual matters to be determined at trial. The State emphasized that the trial court had already applied its mind and framed charges, indicating sufficient grounds to proceed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and reaffirmed the settled principle that such jurisdiction is not meant to substitute trial or to adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The Court observed:
"The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner, that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and did not arise out of any false promise of marriage, involves factual determination which requires appreciation of evidence and examination of witnesses, particularly the victim, and therefore cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings of this nature."
The Court noted that while the complainant admitted to a consensual relationship, the allegations of a false promise of marriage and subsequent coercion were not inherently improbable or absurd. The medical report, though indicating minor injuries, was deemed sufficient at the prima facie stage to corroborate the complainant’s version. The Court further held that the complainant’s failure to appear in court and the existence of a parallel FIR against another individual are matters of defence that must be tested during trial, not at the quashment stage.
The Court emphasized that the trial court had already framed charges after reviewing the material, which itself indicated sufficient grounds to proceed. Interference at this stage would amount to prejudging the case and stifling a legitimate prosecution. The Court declined to substitute its opinion for that of the trial court on issues of credibility, intent, or consent.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the FIR, charge sheet, order of cognizance, framing of charges, and all proceedings arising therefrom shall continue. No costs were awarded. The Court clarified that its observations were strictly limited to the quashment petition and would not prejudice either party during trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Factual Disputes Cannot Be Resolved at Quashment Stage
- Practitioners must recognize that allegations involving consent, intent, or deception in sexual relationships are inherently factual and require full trial
- Section 528 BNSS cannot be used to pre-emptively assess witness credibility or motive
- Mere delay in FIR or failure of complainant to appear are not sufficient grounds for quashment unless the allegations are manifestly false or legally unsustainable
False Promise of Marriage Requires Proof of Dishonest Intent from Inception
- A broken promise to marry, without evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of the promise, does not constitute an offence under Section 69 BNSS
- Courts must distinguish between emotional betrayal and criminal deception
- The burden remains on the prosecution to establish that the promise was never intended to be fulfilled
Parallel Complaints Undermine Prosecution Credibility
- Filing identical allegations against multiple individuals within overlapping timeframes raises serious questions about veracity
- Such conduct may be raised as a defence during trial to challenge the complainant’s credibility
- While not decisive at quashment stage, it may influence judicial perception during evidence recording
