'Women cannot be booked for sex on false promise of marriage', says Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that a woman cannot be prosecuted for the offence of obtaining sexual intercourse through deceitful means or a false promise of marriage under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, while partially quashing criminal proceedings against a woman accused alongside her husband.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, in an order dated September 25, observed that the statutory provision could not be invoked against the woman, who had been named as the second accused in a complaint filed by another woman alleging sexual exploitation, blackmail and intimidation.

The court, however, declined to quash the remaining allegations against the petitioner, allowing the investigation into other alleged offences to continue.

Allegations against couple

The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman who claimed to have been in a sexual relationship with the petitioner's husband. According to the complainant, the man had represented that his marital relationship was strained and allegedly promised to marry her.

The complainant alleged that she entered into a sexual relationship with the man on the strength of his assurances about marriage.

She further accused the man and his wife of recording photographs and videos of her, sharing the material with third parties without her consent and attempting to blackmail her.

Following these allegations, a criminal complaint was registered against the couple for offences relating to sexual intercourse through deceitful means or a false promise of marriage, criminal intimidation, extortion and violations of the Information Technology Act.

The wife subsequently approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her before the trial court.

Section 69 not applicable

Examining the allegations, Justice Hegde held that the offence under Section 69 of the BNS could not be attributed to the petitioner.

The court noted that the petitioner was a woman and that the complaint did not disclose any act by her that would attract the provision concerning sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a false promise of marriage.

Section 69 criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it, where the conduct does not amount to rape. The provision prescribes imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine.

The High Court concluded that the allegations against the petitioner did not satisfy the legal requirements necessary to sustain proceedings under this provision.

Accordingly, it quashed the criminal proceedings against her insofar as they concerned Section 69 of the BNS.

Other charges remain

The court made it clear that its decision did not extend to the other allegations raised in the complaint.

The petitioner continued to face investigation concerning allegations of criminal intimidation, extortion and the unauthorised sharing of photographs and videos.

Addressing the allegations involving electronic material, the High Court observed that investigators would have to establish whether the petitioner had transferred any data or consented to its transfer.

It held that if the investigation found no evidence of data being transferred by the petitioner or with her consent, a chargesheet could not be filed against her for that particular offence.

The court therefore distinguished between the allegations concerning sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage and those relating to the alleged misuse of personal material.

Proceedings partly quashed

The ruling resulted in partial relief for the petitioner, with the High Court setting aside the proceedings under Section 69 while leaving the remaining allegations open to investigation.

The decision did not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in relation to the other offences. Those allegations will be subject to the evidence collected during the investigation and the applicable legal requirements.

Advocate Suyog Herele E appeared for the petitioner, while High Court Government Pleader Nagharish G S represented the State. Advocate Ramesha H E appeared on behalf of the complainant.

The ruling clarifies the application of Section 69 of the BNS in cases involving allegations of sexual intercourse induced by a false promise of marriage, while underscoring that separate allegations of intimidation, extortion or misuse of private material must be examined independently.