BREAKUP TO LOCKUP?

Karnataka High Court Flags "Mushrooming" Misuse of Section 69 BNS In a significant ruling delivered on April 9, 2026, the Karnataka High Court expressed deep concern over the rising trend of criminalizing consensual relationships that have turned sour. While hearing an interim plea, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the newly introduced Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is increasingly being weaponized following breakups.

Case Background

The Parties: The petitioner, a 34-year-old employee at a private firm in Bengaluru (originally from Gwalior), was in a consensual relationship with a female colleague for over eight months.

The Allegation: After the relationship ended, the woman filed a complaint alleging that the man had sexual intercourse with her based on a "deceitful promise of marriage."

The Consequence: Based on this complaint, the man was arrested and remained in judicial custody for 42 days.

Key Observations by the Court

The Court’s remarks highlight a critical intersection between personal autonomy and the new criminal code:

"Breakup equals Lockup": The Judge noted with concern: "The litigation is with regard to misuse of Section 69 of the BNS and mushrooming of cases before this Court by the day... in all cases, where the relationship ends in a breakup, the man is in the lockup."

Lack of Deceit: After perusing the complaint, the Court found that the acts were entirely consensual. There was no allegation of sexual assault or force narrated in the initial statement.

Afterthought Allegations: The Court remarked that the "breach of promise" appeared to be an afterthought that only surfaced once the relationship collapsed, rather than a deceitful intention present from the start.

Abuse of Process: Citing Supreme Court guidelines on FIR quashing, the Court stated that allowing such an investigation to continue would be a gross abuse of the legal process.

What is Section 69 of BNS?

For context in your legal notes, Section 69 (which replaces aspects of the old "promise to marry" jurisprudence under Section 375 of the IPC) criminalizes:

Sexual intercourse by deceitful means.

Making a promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling it.

Punishment: Up to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine.

Legal Takeaway: The High Court has clarified that Section 69 is meant to punish fraud and exploitation, not "failed affection" or the natural end of a consensual domestic association.

Current Status

Immediate Release: The Court ordered the man to be released from jail forthwith.

Stay on Investigation: Further proceedings and police investigation into the FIR have been stayed until the next date of hearing