Kerala High Court: In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, a Single Judge Bench of Jobin Sebastian, J., considered whether allegations of sexual intercourse pursuant to a false promise to marry constituted an offence under Section 69 of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), when the complainant’s marriage was subsisting at the relevant time. The Court observed that while settlement between the parties could not, by itself, justify quashing of proceedings as the case involved a serious offence, including an element of societal interest. The Court, after examining the merits, held that the allegations in the FIR failed to establish that the complainant’s consent was induced by a false promise to marry or by any other deceitful means and therefore, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 69 of the BNS were not made out. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
Factual Matrix
The petitioner, Habibur Rahman, was the sole accused in Crime No. 1440/2025 registered at Kovalam Police Station. The de facto complainant, who is the victim of the offence, alleged that the petitioner made a false promise to marry her and, on 03.11.2025, took her to a hotel at Kovalam, where he allegedly had sexual intercourse with her after mixing sedatives in the food given to her. She further alleged that the petitioner took nude photographs of her and sent them to her through WhatsApp Messenger. Accordingly, the petitioner was charged for committing offences under Section 69 of the BNS and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
However, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking quashing of the FIR and all further proceedings. He submitted that the dispute had been amicably settled and that the de facto complainant, was no longer interested in pursuing the case. The de facto complainant also filed an affidavit confirming the settlement and seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Issues before the Court
-
Whether the criminal proceedings alleging an offence under Section 69 BNS can be quashed solely on the basis of a settlement between the parties?
-
Whether the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were made out?
Law and Analysis
Issue 1: Settlement alone cannot justify quashing of serious offences
The Court, while assessing the criminal petition, observed that the case involved an allegation of sexual intercourse after making a promise to marry the de facto complainant without any intention of fulfilling such promise, punishable under Section 69 of the BNS. The Court, while considering the grave and serious nature of the alleged offence, mentioned that “the matter could not be treated as a purely private dispute, as it also involved an element of societal interest.”
Therefore, the Court held that the criminal proceedings could not be quashed solely on the ground of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the Court accordingly proceeded to examine the merits of the allegations against the petitioner.
Issue 2: Essential ingredients of section 69 BNS not made out
The Court examined the essential ingredients of the principal offence alleged under Section 69 of the BNS. It observed that the provision applies where a person has sexual intercourse with a woman obtained by deceitful means, or by making a promise to marry her without any intention of fulfilling the promise, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
The Court also referred to the First Information Statement (FIS) and observed that the de facto complainant was a married woman with two children and that her husband was alive.
The Court while considering the merits and circumstances of the case noted that the complainant, being a married woman, voluntarily accompanied the petitioner to the hotel and had sexual intercourse with him. The Court held that even if the allegations in the FIS were accepted in their entirety, the materials on record did not establish that her consent was induced by a false promise to marry or by any other deceitful means. Accordingly, the essential ingredients of Section 69 BNS were not made out and the allegations did not disclose the commission of an offence under the provision.
The Court further opined that since the parties had arrived at a settlement, the possibility of a successful prosecution was “remote and bleak” and that continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an “abuse of the process of law.”
Decision
The Kerala High Court allowed the petition and, exercising its powers under Section 528 BNSS, quashed the FIR in Crime No. 1440/2025 registered at Kovalam Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner.
[Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4354 of 2026, decided on 3-9-2026]
Judgment authored by: Justice Jobin Sebastian
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mithun P., Afsal Khan H. and Merin Thomas, Advocates
For the State: Megha K. Xavier, Senior Public Prosecutor
