Section 69 BNS Not Attracted When Complainant Is A Married Woman: Kerala High Court
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom held that it’s “uncertain” if the offence beneath Part 69 of the BNS is attracted when the de facto complainant is a married lady.
Part 69 makes an offence, “Sexual activity by using deceitful means and many others.” and says, “Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a lady with none intention of fulfilling the identical, and has sexual activity together with her, such sexual activity not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of both description for a time period which can lengthen to 10 years and shall even be liable to effective.“
The Courtroom allowed an Software filed beneath Part 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The prosecution had alleged towards the Petitioner, accused beneath Sections 84 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), after giving a false promise of marriage, sexually assaulted the de facto complainant and threatened to publish her pictures and movies.
A Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held, “On a consideration of the rival contentions and on a perusal of the assertion of the sufferer given to the police, it’s seen that the de facto complainant is a married woman. The truth is, one of many offences alleged towards the petitioner is that beneath Part 84 of BNS, which offers with attractive or taking away with legal intent a married girls. As soon as the admitted case of the prosecution itself is that the de facto complainant is a married girls, there can’t be sexual activity with the promise of marriage.”
Advocate Ameen Hassan Okay appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Public Prosecutor Noushad Okay A represented the Respondents.
Temporary Info
The Petitioner argued that the prosecution’s allegations had been completely false and that the incident, as alleged, had not occurred. The Petitioner submitted that even going by the allegations, the Complainant was a married woman and due to this fact, there couldn’t be sexual intercourse with a promise of marriage.
Courtroom’s Reasoning
The Excessive Courtroom referred to its choice in Anilkumar v. State of Kerala (2021), whereby it was held, “there can’t be a promise of marriage when one of many events is in a subsisting marriage.”
The Bench held, “In such a view of the matter, prima facie, it’s uncertain whether or not the offence beneath Part 69 will be attracted.”
Consequently, the Courtroom ordered, “Bearing in mind the above circumstances, I’m of the view that this can be a match case to launch the petitioner on bail.”
Accordingly, the Excessive Courtroom allowed the Software.
Trigger Title: X v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Impartial Quotation: 2025:KER:48012)
Look:
Petitioner: Advocates Ameen Hassan Okay and Rebin Vincent Gralan
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Noushad Okay A
