“Law Does Not Criminalise Heartbreak”: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused Of Rape On Pretext Of Marriage

The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 69 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the petitioner had established physical relations with the complainant on the false promise of marriage.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while stating that “the law does not criminalize heart break”, held: “The criminal justice system, an instrument of State power, cannot be permitted to become a weapon in private disputes arising out of failed relationships. The facts, even if accepted in toto, disclose nothing beyond a relationship that did not culminate in matrimony. To permit investigation in such circumstances would not advance justice; it would distort it”.

Background

According to the material placed before the Court, the petitioner and the complainant met in Ireland while pursuing their respective academic studies. Their acquaintance gradually developed into a relationship which later matured into a live-in arrangement.

The complaint indicated that the parties lived together for a considerable period and maintained a physical relationship while residing abroad. The complainant was already married and had a child when the relationship began, though divorce proceedings between her and her husband had already been initiated.

The relationship between the parties eventually deteriorated. The complainant later returned to India and lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had induced her into a sexual relationship on the assurance that he would marry her. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR.

Court’s Observation

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the complaint and the surrounding circumstances and noted that the narrative in the complaint itself reflected a prolonged consensual relationship between two adults.

At the outset, the Court observed that the complaint did not disclose coercion, deception at the inception of the relationship or use of force. Instead, it described a voluntary association between the parties involving companionship and cohabitation. As the Court noted, “the complaint read in its entirety does not narrate coercion, deception at inception or force. It speaks of companionship, cohabitation, shared domesticity and consensual intimacy extending over 2 years.”

The Court further observed that the allegations essentially indicated emotional disappointment following the breakdown of the relationship rather than the commission of a criminal offence. The Court therefore remarked that “what has followed is not an allegation of violence, but an allegation of betrayal,” reiterating that “the law does not criminalize heart break.”

While analysing the legal position, the Court referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court which have consistently held that consensual relationships between adults cannot be retrospectively criminalised merely because the relationship subsequently fails or does not culminate in marriage.

The Court reiterated the settled distinction between a breach of promise and a false promise made with no intention of being fulfilled at the inception. It noted that criminal liability can arise only where it is established that the promise of marriage was a deceitful stratagem from the very beginning, intended solely to induce consent for sexual relations.

The Court also emphasised that where a relationship between consenting adults continues over a considerable period, the subsequent withdrawal from the relationship cannot automatically convert the earlier consensual intimacy into a criminal offence.

Referring to the broader implications of such prosecutions, the Court cautioned that criminal law should not be used as a tool in personal disputes arising from failed relationships. It observed that if every broken relationship were to be treated as a criminal offence, “the Courts would transform into a forum of personal vendetta, rather than forums of justice.”

The Court further held that permitting investigation in such circumstances would amount to misuse of the criminal justice system and would fall within the categories laid down by the Supreme Court for quashing criminal proceedings where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence.

Conclusion

In view of the facts and the settled legal principles governing allegations based on a promise of marriage, the High Court held that the complaint did not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner, holding that continuation of the investigation would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Cause Title: Harshdeep Girish Parlathaya v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol with Mohan Kumar G., Advocate

Respondents: B. N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor; C. Parameshwarappa, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment