False Promise To Marry Case U/S.69 Of BNS Can’t Be Applied Against Woman: Karnataka High Court
H.K. Prathibha v. The State of Karnataka 2026:KHC:53190 False Promise To Marry Section 69 BNS
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that the offence of sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means or a false promise to marry under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 cannot be attracted against a woman.
The High Court was considering a petition seeking to quash the FIR and the complaint in a case registered before the Subrahmanyapura police station for the offences alleged under Sections 69, 308 (2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Single Bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held, “Admittedly, the petitioner is a woman and is arrayed as accused No.2 and the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, cannot be attracted against the petitioner and the allegations in the complaint do not indicate any such act by the petitioner.”
Advocate Suyog Herele E. represented the Petitioner, while High Court Government Pleader Nagharish G.S. represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The complainant claimed that she had a relationship with the first accused, the husband of the petitioner. The complaint was filed on the allegation that the petitioner and the accused represented to the complainant that their marital relationship was not cordial, and this led to the complainant developing an acquaintance with the accused. It was further alleged that the first accused promised to marry the complainant and thereafter had a physical relationship with her.
It was also alleged that several photographs and videographs of the complainant were taken by the accused persons and that they had shared the same with a third party without her consent and knowledge. The complainant further alleged that the accused persons also attempted to blackmail her.
Reasoning
Considering that the petitioner is a woman and arrayed as accused, the Bench noted that the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, could not be attracted against the petitioner and the allegations in the complaint did not indicate any such act by the petitioner.
Dealing with the allegation of transfer of photographs pertaining to the complainant without her consent and knowledge, the Bench held that during the course of investigation, if it came to light that there was no data transfer by the petitioner or with the consent of the petitioner, then there would not be any charge sheet for the said offence against the petitioner.
Thus, allowing the petition in part and quashing the complaint against the petitioner under Section 69 of the BNS, the Bench ordered, “There shall be investigation relating to the other offences alleged.”
Cause Title: H.K. Prathibha the State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:53190)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Suyog Herele E.
Respondent: High Court Government Pleader Nagharish G.S., Advocate Ramesha H.E