In a significant judgment that addresses the growing number of criminal complaints emerging from failed romantic relationships, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed a criminal case filed by a woman lawyer against her former partner, ruling that consensual sexual relationships cannot later be recast as criminal offences merely because they ended on a bitter note.
Justice B Pugalendhi said, "The criminal process cannot be used to moralise private conduct or convert personal disappointment into litigation, as courts deal with legality, not morality. The law intervenes only where consent is vitiated by coercion, deception or incapacity."
The case involved a woman advocate who had accused her former partner of having sexual relations with her on a false promise of marriage - an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relationship reportedly spanned several years, from 2020 to 2025.
Justice Pugalendhi noted that both individuals were educated adults who had "consciously entered into a relationship of intimacy." He ruled, "Having exercised that choice, it is not open to either to later portray private discord as criminal misconduct," stressing that "the law is not an instrument for resolving emotional fallouts or for attributing moral blame arising from consensual acts between adults."
The Court referred extensively to recent Supreme Court rulings - including Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013), Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (2025) and Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (2025) - all of which caution against conflating failed consensual relationships with deception or coercion. Quoting the top court, Justice Pugalendhi highlighted, "Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fallout. Such lis (litigation) amounts to an abuse of process of law."
He also expressed concern over "the growing tendency to invoke the criminal process in private relationship disputes," adding that the judiciary has "witnessed an increase in complaints of this nature, where relationships voluntarily entered into are subsequently projected as instances of deception or breach of promise."
The Court ultimately ruled that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and quashed the case.
Justice Pugalendhi noted, "In present times, instances of premarital intimacy between consenting adults are not uncommon. The line between emotional attachment and physical relationship is often indistinct, and when such relationships end in discord, competing narratives frequently emerge about what transpired in private."
