Section 69 BNS Not Attracted When Complainant Is A Married Woman: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court allowed an Application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that it is “doubtful” if the offence under Section 69 of the BNS is attracted when the de facto complainant is a married woman.
Section 69 makes an offence, "Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc." and says, "Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine."
The Court allowed an Application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The prosecution had alleged against the Petitioner, accused under Sections 84 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), after giving a false promise of marriage, sexually assaulted the de facto complainant and threatened to publish her photos and videos.
A Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held, “On a consideration of the rival contentions and on a perusal of the statement of the victim given to the police, it is noticed that the de facto complainant is a married lady. In fact, one of the offences alleged against the petitioner is that under Section 84 of BNS, which deals with enticing or taking away with criminal intent a married women. Once the admitted case of the prosecution itself is that the de facto complainant is a married women, there cannot be sexual intercourse with the promise of marriage.”
Advocate Ameen Hassan K appeared for the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Noushad K A represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner argued that the prosecution’s allegations were totally false and that the incident, as alleged, had not occurred. The Petitioner submitted that even going by the allegations, the Complainant was a married lady and therefore, there could not be sexual intercourse with a promise of marriage.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court referred to its decision in Anilkumar v. State of Kerala (2021), wherein it was held, “there cannot be a promise of marriage when one of the parties is in a subsisting marriage.”
The Bench held, “In such a view of the matter, prima facie, it is doubtful whether the offence under Section 69 can be attracted.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Taking into consideration the above circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case to release the petitioner on bail.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Application.
Cause Title: X v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:48012)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Ameen Hassan K and Rebin Vincent Gralan
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Noushad K A