The Kerala High Court has ruled to dismiss a case against a man accused of inducing a married woman into sexual intercourse through a false promise of marriage. Justice Jobin Sebastian quashed the First Information Report (FIR) after determining that the legal requirements for the charge under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) were not satisfied. The complainant, who was married with two children, could not establish that her consent was solely induced by the unfulfilled marriage pledge, as her own First Information Statement confirmed her husband was alive.
The allegations included claims that the accused took the woman to a hotel in Kovalam, mixed sedatives in her food, and later shared nude photographs via WhatsApp. Prosecutors argued the man violated Section 69 of the BNS, which criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceit or a false promise of marriage. However, the court found that the complainant’s marital status—confirmed in her statement—undermined her claim that consent was coerced solely by the broken promise. The case was originally registered under both Section 69 of the BNS and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2008, though the latter charge was not addressed in the final ruling.
While both parties acknowledged an out-of-court settlement, the court refused to quash the case based on that alone, given the serious nature of the allegations. Instead, it examined the merits of the case. The ruling emphasized that a married woman engaging in consensual relations with another man, even if deceived, cannot later argue her consent was invalidated by a broken promise when her marital status was undisputed. The court stressed that her existing marriage, rather than the accused’s alleged deception, was the key factor in determining whether consent was freely given.
Court rejects deception claim over marital status
The decision narrows the application of Section 69, which requires proof that consent was entirely induced by deceit. Here, the court concluded the complainant’s actions, voluntarily traveling to a hotel, participating in intercourse, and later sharing images, demonstrated her consent was not solely driven by the promise. Without evidence that her marital status was hidden or that she acted under duress, the legal standard for the offense was not met. The ruling also cited the accused’s petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which allows courts to quash proceedings when the likelihood of conviction is remote, a factor explicitly considered in the decision.
Related Post: Supreme Court may hand ED case to CBI
The accused’s petition succeeded, and all charges against him were dropped under Section 528 of the BNSS, with the court stating that continuing proceedings would serve no useful purpose and could constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Legal limits on false promise charges
The case, Habibur Rahman vs. State of Kerala & Anr., Crl.MC No. 4354 of 2026, highlights the complexities of applying criminal law to disputes involving married individuals and allegations of deception. The ruling shows that the complainant’s marital status and voluntary actions played a decisive role in determining whether the legal threshold for coercion was met.
Defense attorneys, including Shri. Mithun P., Shri. Afsal Khan H., and Smt. Merin Thomas, argued the dispute had been amicably settled, submitting an affidavit from the complainant confirming the resolution. The Senior Public Prosecutor, Smt. Megha K. Xavier, confirmed the complainant had withdrawn the case, though the court rejected the argument that this alone justified quashing the FIR. The final order cited the “remote and bleak” possibility of a successful prosecution as the reason for dismissal.