In a noteworthy judgment interpreting Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the mere refusal to marry a long-term live-in partner does not, by itself, constitute the offence of rape.
The case arose from an FIR lodged by a woman who alleged that the accused had engaged in a physical relationship with her on the promise of marriage but later reneged on that promise. The parties, however, had been in a consensual live-in relationship for nearly seven years before the relationship ended.
While quashing the FIR, the High Court observed that the relationship was neither casual nor short-lived. The parties had voluntarily cohabited as adults for several years, making it difficult to infer that the woman’s consent for the physical relationship was obtained solely on the basis of a false promise of marriage.
The Court reiterated an important legal principle: every failed promise to marry does not amount to rape. Criminal liability can arise only where it is established that the promise to marry was false from the very inception, made with no intention of being fulfilled, and was used merely as a means to obtain consent for sexual relations. A subsequent change of mind or the breakdown of a genuine relationship does not automatically warrant criminal prosecution.
The ruling draws a clear distinction between a failed consensual relationship and a criminal offence. It also reinforces the need for courts to carefully evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case before invoking criminal law in disputes arising out of long-term relationships.
The decision is expected to serve as an important precedent in the interpretation of Section 69 BNS and underscores the principle that criminal law should not be used to penalise every unsuccessful relationship.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
