Married Woman Accompanying Another Man To Hotel Can’t Claim Sexual Relationship Was Induced By False Promise To Marry: Kerala High Court

The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the sole accused in a case registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2008, seeking an order quashing the FIR and all further proceedings.

The Single Bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian held, “However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the de facto complainant is a married woman and has two children. It is further evident from the First Information Statement (FIS) given by the de facto complainant, on the basis of which the present case was registered, that her husband is alive. In such circumstances, a married woman who voluntarily accompanies another man to a hotel room and has sexual intercourse with him cannot, merely on the basis of an allegation of a promise of marriage, contend that the sexual relationship was induced solely by such promise, particularly when her subsisting marriage was not in dispute.”

Advocate Mithun P. represented the Petitioner while Senior Public Prosecutor Megha K. Xavier represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was the case of the prosecution that the accused made a false promise to marry the de facto complainant and on November 3, 2025, he took her to a hotel at Kovalam and had sexual intercourse with her after mixing some sedatives in the food given to her. It was alleged that the accused took nude photographs of the de facto complainant and sent those photos to her through WhatsApp.

Reasoning

It was brought to the Court’s notice that the dispute between the parties had been settled and the de facto complainant was no longer interested in continuing the prosecution against the petitioner. Considering that the case could not be treated as a purely private dispute, as it involved an element of societal interest, the Bench held that the criminal proceedings could not be quashed solely on the ground of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

The Bench explained that Section 69 of the BNS provides that whoever, by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the de facto complainant was a married woman. The Bench thus held that a married woman who voluntarily accompanies another man to a hotel room and has sexual intercourse with him cannot, merely on the basis of an allegation of a promise of marriage, contend that the sexual relationship was induced solely by such promise.

“In the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the consent for the sexual relationship was induced by any false promise to marry the de facto complainant or by any other deceitful means”, it stated while holding that the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 69 of the BNS were not made out.

Taking note of the fact that the materials placed on record did not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 69 of the BNS and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings.

Cause Title: Habibur Rahman v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:67015)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Mithun P., Afsal Khan H., Merin Thomas

Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Megha K. Xavier

Click here to read/download Order