HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15336 of 2025 in Crl.MP(MD) Nos.12458 and 12461 of 2025 Kannan … Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.

by Sekar Reporter · April 24, 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 26.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15336 of 2025 in
Crl.MP(MD) Nos.12458 and 12461 of 2025
Kannan … Petitioner/Sole Accused

Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.
Crime No.01/2025.
…1st Respondent / Complainant
2. Mahalakshmi …. 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in P.R.C.No.90 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi
District and quash the charge sheet as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.Arulvadivusekar @ Sekar
Senior counsel,
For Mr.R.Ilayaraja
For R-1 : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R-2 : Mr.B.Jeyakumar
ORDER
Preface:
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.90 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivaikundam.
2. The petitioner stands arrayed as an accused for the alleged offences under Sections 318(2), 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The gravamen of the accusation pertains to a prolonged intimate relationship allegedly induced on the false promise of marriage.
3. The present petition raises a significant question touching upon the delicate intersection between consent, deception, and exploitation in intimate relationships, particularly when such consent is alleged to have been vitiated by a promise of marriage.
Case of the prosecution:
4. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the Final Report, is that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, after the demise of her husband in the year 2015, was residing along with her minor child in her parental home and had joined employment under the petitioner in the year 2022.
5. It is alleged that the petitioner, taking advantage of her vulnerable socio-economic condition, developed intimacy with her and induced her into a physical relationship on the promise of marriage.
6. The prosecution would further state that such physical relationship was not a solitary occurrence, but continued repeatedly over a period of nearly two years, during which the victim is said to have reposed trust in the assurance of the petitioner that he would marry her.
7. It is further alleged that after repeatedly engaging inphysical relations, the petitioner ultimately refused to marry the victim, thereby exposing the promise as false and deceptive, leading to the registration of the present case. Based on the said allegations, the Final Report came to be filed invoking the provisions under Sections 318(2), 69 and 351(2) of BNS.
Grounds for quash:
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the entire allegations, even if taken at face value, would only indicate a consensual relationship between two adults and would not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is further submitted that there is no material to show that the consent of the victim was obtained under a misconception of fact or that there was a fraudulent intention at the inception of the relationship.
9. The learned counsel would also argue that mere breach of promise to marry would not amount to a criminal offence unless it is demonstrated that such promise was false from the very inception. It is further contended that the victim being a mature woman, previously married and having a child, was fully aware of the nature of the relationship and hence the element of deception is absent.
10. The petitioner also raises a legal contention regarding retrospective application of Section 69 of BNS, submitting that part of the alleged occurrence predates the coming into force of the said provision. It is lastly contended that the allegation of criminal intimidation is vague and bereft of particulars.
Arguments on either side:
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the grounds raised in the petition and submitted that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court.
12. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the Final Report clearly discloses prima facie materials and that the truthfulness of the allegations can only be tested during trial. It is further contended that the question as to whether the promise of marriage was false from inception is a matter of evidence and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of quash.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the petitioner had systematically exploited the emotional vulnerability of the victim and had subjected her to repeated physical relations under a deceptive assurance of marriage.
14. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.
Point for consideration:
15. The point that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the allegations in the Final Report, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of offences under Sections 318(2), 69 and 351(2) of BNS, warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS?
Analysis:
16. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS is extremely limited. This Court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into disputed facts or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence.
17. The core contention of the petitioner revolves around theplea of “consent”. However, the concept of consent in criminal jurisprudence is not a mere physical willingness, but must be an informed and conscious decision, free from deception.
18. The allegation in the present case is not of a casual or isolated relationship, but of a sustained course of conduct, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have repeatedly engaged in physical relations with the victim on the assurance of marriage.
19. The law is well settled that if a promise to marry is made without any intention of being fulfilled, and such promise induces the victim to consent to sexual relations, such consent stands vitiated by misconception of fact.
20. Whether the promise was false from inception or whether it subsequently became incapable of being fulfilled are matters which require evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.
21. The contention that the victim is a mature woman cannot,by itself, negate the possibility of deception. Emotional vulnerability, social pressures and economic dependency are factors which may significantly influence consent.
22. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the profound and multi-dimensional harm that such acts may inflict upon a woman. Mentally, the victim is subjected to emotional betrayal, loss of trust and psychological trauma. The promise of marriage, in the sociocultural context of this country, carries with it not merely personal hope but societal legitimacy. Its breach, after prolonged intimacy, leaves the victim in a state of emotional devastation.
23. Biologically and physically, repeated sexual contact under emotional coercion or deceptive inducement may have consequences on the health and well-being of the victim. The absence of a secure relationship framework exposes her to physical vulnerabilities and health risks.
24. Socially, the consequences are even more severe. In asociety where stigma continues to attach to a woman’s sexual autonomy, the victim is often subjected to judgment, ostracism and
character assassination. The burden of such stigma
disproportionately falls upon the woman.
25. The long-term implications on her future be it in remarriage, social acceptance or psychological stability cannot be understated. The erosion of dignity and self-worth is an injury that law cannot lightly disregard. Thus, allegations of this nature cannot be trivialised as mere “consensual relationships gone sour”. The law must carefully examine whether such consent was truly voluntary or was secured through manipulation and deceit.
26. The contention regarding retrospective application of Section 69 BNS is a matter that can be examined during trial, particularly in the light of continuing offence theory and the date of last occurrence. Similarly, the allegation of criminal intimidation, though challenged as vague, cannot be dissected in isolation at this stage, as it forms part of the overall factual matrix. This Court finds that the Final Report discloses sufficient prima facie materials warranting trial.
27. The inherent power of this Court is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly malicious. The present case, however, involves serious allegations touching upon exploitation of trust, emotional manipulation and potential abuse under the guise of a promise of marriage. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to stifle the prosecution at its threshold.
28. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.(MD)No.12458 of 2025 is closed.
29. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court is dispensed with, except on occasions when his presence is specifically required by the learned Magistrate. Hence, Crl.M.P.
(MD)No.12461 of 2026 is allowed.
21.04.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.