The Kerala High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Section 69 of (BNS), holding that a married woman who voluntarily accompanied a man to a hotel and had sexual intercourse with him could not, merely on the basis of an alleged promise of marriage, claim that the relationship was induced solely by that promise. The Court found that the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 69 BNS were not made out from the allegations.
Justice Jobin Sebastian passed the order on September 3, 2026, in Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala & Anr., arising from Crime No. 1440/2025 of Kovalam Police Station. The Court noted that the complainant was a married woman with two children and that her husband was alive when the alleged incident took place.
Background of the Case
The accused had approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
According to the prosecution case, the accused allegedly made a false promise to marry the complainant and took her to a hotel at Kovalam on November 3, 2025. It was further alleged that he had sexual intercourse with her after mixing sedatives in food and later took nude photographs of her and sent them through WhatsApp. The FIR invoked Section 69 BNS and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.
During the proceedings, the complainant stated through an affidavit that the dispute had been amicably settled and that she did not wish to continue the case. The State also confirmed that she was no longer interested in pursuing the prosecution.
Court’s Observation
The High Court first made it clear that the FIR could not be quashed merely because the parties had settled their dispute. It observed that allegations concerning the offence under Section 69 BNS were serious and involved an element of societal interest.
The Court then examined whether the allegations actually satisfied Section 69 BNS, which deals with sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a promise to marry made without an intention to fulfil it.
A significant factor was that the complainant was a married woman with two children and that her husband was alive.
“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.”
The Court held that, even if the allegations in the First Information Statement were accepted in full, the required ingredients of Section 69 BNS were not established.
Decision
The High Court further found that, following the settlement, the possibility of a successful prosecution was “remote and bleak”. It held that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all further proceedings against the accused
Case Details
Case Title: Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 4354 of 2026
Judge: Justice Jobin Sebastian
Decision Date: September 3, 2026
