The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused under Sections 69 and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that a promise to marry, by itself, is not enough to establish that consent for a sexual relationship was obtained through deceit.
Justice Jobin Sebastian passed the order on September 7, 2026, while allowing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Background of the Case
The case arose from Crime No. 219 of 2026 registered at Vazhakkulam Police Station, Ernakulam. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and the complainant had sexual relations at different places in February 2026 after he allegedly promised to marry her.
The complainant later became pregnant. According to the allegations, after learning about the pregnancy, the petitioner asked her to abort the child and thereby cheated her. The record also showed that the parties became engaged on March 11, 2026, and subsequently lived together as husband and wife.
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, arguing that the relationship was consensual and that the allegations did not satisfy the legal requirements of the offences invoked.
Court's Observation
The High Court noted that the complainant was still legally married when the relationship began and obtained a divorce only in March 2026. The FIR did not specifically allege that the petitioner knew about any pending divorce proceedings or had promised to marry her after her existing marriage was dissolved.
The Court emphasised that for Section 69 BNS to apply on the basis of a false promise of marriage, there must be material showing that the promise was false from the beginning and had a direct connection with the woman's decision to engage in the sexual relationship.
"A subsequent failure to marry, by itself, cannot retrospectively render consensual sexual intercourse an offence."
The Court also considered the repeated nature of the relationship and the fact that the parties met at several locations. It held that the subsequent events could not, by themselves, establish that the initial consent had been obtained through deceit.
Decision
The High Court further held that the allegation that the petitioner asked the complainant to abort the pregnancy, along with the use of the word "cheated", did not by itself establish the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 316(2) BNS.
Finding that the allegations, even if accepted in full, did not disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 69 and 316(2) BNS, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No. 219 of 2026.
The criminal miscellaneous case was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Zahid Shanavas v. State of Kerala & Anr.
- Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 4652 of 2026; Crime No. 219/2026
- Judge: Justice Jobin Sebastian
- Decision Date: September 7, 2026
