The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that long-term consensual relationships, even when followed by a complaint alleging false promise of marriage, cannot be criminalized under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, absent evidence of mala fide intent from the outset. This ruling reinforces the principle that post-facto allegations, particularly when rooted in emotional disappointment, do not transform voluntary intimacy into a criminal offence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Lalit Jhariya, is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 183/2026 registered at Police Station Ranjhi, District Jabalpur, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The offence pertains to sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or by making a false promise to marry, without any intention to fulfill it. The complainant, aged 33, alleges that the applicant, aged 35, engaged in a sexual relationship with her over a period of more than ten years, beginning in 2015, under the false pretext of marriage, and later misused her nude photographs.
Key Facts
- The applicant and complainant were both major individuals at all material times
- The relationship began in 2015 and continued for over a decade
- Both parties were unmarried at the time of the initial sexual encounters
- The complainant allegedly proposed marriage to the applicant on multiple occasions, but he allegedly refused
- The complainant filed the complaint only after learning that the applicant was preparing to marry another woman
- The applicant has no prior criminal record
- The complainant’s complaint was filed on 10.02.2026
- The FIR was registered on 12.02.2026
- The applicant filed the present anticipatory bail application on 28.03.2026
- The applicant has agreed to cooperate fully with the investigation
Procedural History
- 2015: Commencement of consensual relationship between applicant and complainant
- 10.02.2026: Complaint filed by the complainant at Police Station Ranjhi
- 12.02.2026: FIR No. 183/2026 registered under Section 69 BNSS
- 28.03.2026: Application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 BNSS
- 02.04.2026: Hearing before the High Court at Jabalpur
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel contended that the relationship was consensual, long-standing, and devoid of any initial deceit. He emphasized that both parties were adults, the complainant was educated, and she had voluntarily visited the applicant at his place of residence on multiple occasions. The complaint was filed only after the applicant’s impending marriage to another woman, indicating retaliatory intent. The applicant assured full cooperation with the investigation and submitted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
For the Respondent/State
The State and the objector opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations of false promise of marriage and misuse of photographs constituted a serious offence under Section 69 BNSS. They contended that the nature of the offence, involving exploitation of a woman’s trust, warranted custodial interrogation to preserve evidence and prevent tampering.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail to prevent arrest in connection with Crime No. 183/2026, and requests that if arrested, he be released on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of like amount, subject to conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a consensual sexual relationship spanning over a decade, initiated without any evidence of deceit or false promise at its inception, can be criminalized under Section 69 of the BNSS solely on the basis of a post-facto complaint filed after the relationship ended due to the accused’s decision to marry another.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra and Rajnish Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh to argue that where a woman willingly engages in a long-term sexual relationship with full awareness of its nature, and there is no evidence that the accused made a false promise of marriage from the outset, the offence under Section 69 BNSS cannot be made out. He emphasized that the complainant’s own conduct - initiating contact, traveling to meet the applicant, and even portraying herself as his wife - demonstrated consent and negated any claim of deception. He further cited Mahesh Damu to argue that mere breach of a promise, without proof of mala fide intent at the time of the promise, does not constitute deceit under the law.
For the Respondent/State
The State and objector argued that the very nature of Section 69 BNSS is to protect women from exploitation through false promises of marriage. They contended that the prolonged nature of the relationship did not negate the possibility of deceit, especially given the alleged misuse of nude photographs. They asserted that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the authenticity of the complainant’s claims and to secure digital evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the FIR, the relationship dynamics, and binding precedents from the Supreme Court. It noted that the FIR was conspicuously silent on any specific allegation of coercion, force, or initial deceit. The Court observed that the complainant, being an educated adult, had repeatedly initiated contact and visited the applicant at his residence, indicating voluntary participation.
"It is also borne out from the record that whenever the appellant brought up the subject of marriage, respondent No.2 herself opposed the proposal. In such circumstances, the contention of respondent No.2 that the physical relationship between the parties was premised upon any assurance of marriage by the appellant is devoid of merit and stands unsustainable."
The Court further relied on Mahesh Damu, emphasizing that for a promise to amount to deceit under Section 69 BNSS, it must have been made from the very beginning with an intention to deceive. The Court held that the mere failure to marry, even if regrettable, does not equate to criminal deceit unless proven that the accused never intended to marry from the inception.
"There is a clear distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence."
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on Ganga Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, noting that the absence of an express statement of consent in the bail application could not override the clear factual matrix disclosed in the FIR and the complainant’s own conduct. It held that the prosecution’s case, as it stood, failed to establish a prima facie offence under Section 69 BNSS.
The Court also invoked State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to conclude that continuing the prosecution in this case would amount to an abuse of process, as the relationship was consensual and the complaint appeared motivated by personal grievance.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail. If arrested, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of like amount. He must comply with the following conditions: (a) make himself available for police interrogation as required; (b) not intimidate witnesses or the complainant; (c) not leave India without court permission; and (d) not commit any similar offence. The order shall stand vacated if any condition is violated. The Court explicitly stated that this order does not prejudge the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent Over Time Trumps Post-Facto Allegations
- Practitioners must now argue that long-term consensual relationships, especially those lasting over five years, cannot be retroactively criminalized merely because the relationship ended due to the accused’s decision to marry someone else
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to prove mala fide intent at the inception of the relationship, not merely a subsequent breach of promise
- Courts must scrutinize the complainant’s conduct during the relationship - such as initiating contact, cohabitation, or public representation as spouse - as evidence of consent
False Promise Requires Proof of Initial Deceit
- A promise to marry made in good faith, later unfulfilled due to changed circumstances, does not attract criminal liability under Section 69 BNSS
- Evidence of deceit must be contemporaneous with the sexual encounter, not derived from later events
- Mere possession or use of photographs, without coercion or threat, does not by itself constitute deceit under Section 69 BNSS
Judicial Caution Against Abuse of Process
- Courts must exercise caution before allowing criminal proceedings to proceed where the complaint appears retaliatory or emotionally motivated
- The doctrine of abuse of process under Section 482 BNSS is now firmly available to quash cases arising from consensual relationships lacking initial deceit
- Investigating agencies should not be permitted to arrest individuals in such cases without prima facie evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of the relationship’s commencement
