MADURAI: Observing that a breakup of a consensual relationship by itself would not attract penal provisions of Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which criminalises sexual intercourse with a woman under deceitful means like false promise of marriage, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday stressed on the need to check the growing tendency to invoke the criminal process in private relationship disputes. The law intervenes only when consent is vitiated by coercion, deception, or incapacity, the court said.
Justice B Pugalendhi made the observations while quashing a criminal case registered against a man for having physical relationship with a woman by falsely promising to marry her. Noting that both were educated adults who consciously chose to enter into a relationship of intimacy, the judge said, “Having exercised that choice, it is not open to either to later portray private discord as criminal misconduct. The law is not an instrument for resolving emotional fallouts or for attributing moral blame arising from consensual acts between adults.”
He further observed that of late, the court has witnessed an increase in complaints of this nature, where relationships voluntarily entered into are subsequently projected as instances of deception or breach of promise.
“Such matters, rooted in personal association and mutual choice, do not ordinarily warrant criminal prosecution,” he added and allowed the man’s plea to quash the criminal case pending against him.
He further observed that in present times, instances of premarital intimacy between consenting adults are not uncommon. “This court makes this observation not to endorse or moralise such conduct, but to acknowledge the changing contours of personal relationships in contemporary society,” he added.
When such relationships end in discord, competing narratives frequently emerge about what transpired in private, he pointed out. It is neither possible nor appropriate for a court to conclusively determine whether the relationship was founded on affection, expectation of marriage, or mere mutual pleasure as such matters are only known to the parties concerned, he added.
“The criminal process cannot be used to moralise private conduct or convert personal disappointment into litigation, as courts deal with legality, not morality. The law intervenes only where consent is vitiated by coercion, deception, or incapacity,” the judge further said.