The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday raised concern over a growing trend in which complainants invoke Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) after a relationship breaks down. The Court noted that many such cases appear to involve consensual relationships that later turn into criminal complaints.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said the number of cases registered soon after Section 69 came into force has increased sharply. He remarked that such matters are “mushrooming” before the High Court.
Background of the case
The Court made these observations while hearing a plea filed by a man. He alleged that a woman he met on the dating app Bumble filed a false complaint under Section 69 BNS, even though their sexual relationship was consensual.
Section 69 BNS punishes a person who induces a woman to engage in sexual intercourse by deceitful means. The provision also covers a false promise of marriage.
Interim relief granted
The High Court granted interim relief to the petitioner. It stayed the criminal investigation until the next date of hearing. The Court also directed that the petitioner be released from prison.
Justice Nagaprasanna observed:
“When the relationship would tumble, the crime has emerged against the petitioner on the score that petitioner has had sexual intercourse with the complainant deceitfully on promise of marriage. Such cases being registered on the onset of Section 69 (of BNS) are mushrooming before this court. This case becomes a classic illustration of one such case that has mushroomed. Therefore, there shall be an interim order of stay of investigations against petitioner until the next date of hearing.”
Court flags arrests in such matters
The Court also flagged how quickly arrests take place in these complaints. Justice Nagaprasanna orally remarked:
“After having two-three years of consensual relationship – (someone) registers a crime, and the man is inside.”
In its interim order, the Court recorded:
“The State, on the score that the offence alleged is one punishable with 10 years imprisonment, is, on the moment of registration of crime, taking every accused into custody.”
Poem referred to during hearing
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel referred to a poem written by the complainant. The defence said the poem showed that the relationship was consensual and casual.
The State opposed the argument. It said the poem also referred to a promise of marriage.
Justice Nagaprasanna asked whether the poem was addressed to the petitioner. Counsel replied:
“I’m (the accused man/ petitioner) the muse.”
The judge responded:
“It would amuse.”
Custody and release direction
The Court noted that the petitioner remained in judicial custody, and the court had recently extended it until March 4. The Court observed that the facts suggested a consensual relationship. In that situation, the police should not have arrested the petitioner.
The Court held:
“In a case of this nature, where the accused could not have been taken into custody, as they were all purely consensual acts between the two, the petitioner is now facing imprisonment. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct jail authorities to forthwith release the petitioner from prison and be set at liberty with conditions.”
