High court questions arrests in false promise of marriage cases, directs state to act
Bengaluru, : The Karnataka High Court has expressed serious concern over the routine arrest of accused persons in cases involving allegations of sexual relations on the false promise of marriage, observing that arrest is not mandatory in such cases. The court has directed the state government to take appropriate measures to prevent unnecessary arrests and ensure that police follow established legal principles.
The observations were made by Justice M. Nagaprasanna while hearing a petition filed by H.G. Ganga (29), a resident of Hokkalalli village, who had sought quashing of an FIR registered against him at Banakal police station in Mudigere taluk of Chikkamagaluru district. The FIR invoked charges under rape provisions and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleging that the accused had engaged in a physical relationship with the complainant after promising marriage but later failed to fulfil the promise.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that the complainant had filed the complaint after a delay of one year and three months. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner had already applied for anticipatory bail, but was arrested by the police and remanded to judicial custody by the lower court.
Questioning the arrest, Justice Nagaprasanna asked the state’s Additional Government Advocate B.N. Jagadeesh why police were routinely arresting accused persons in such cases when arrest was not mandatory. “This is a case of an alleged physical relationship on the promise of marriage. I do not understand why arrests are being made in such cases. Just because the offence carries a possible punishment of up to 10 years does not mean arrest is compulsory,” the court remarked.
The judge further observed that many accused in similar cases were being sent to jail despite clear judicial guidelines discouraging unnecessary arrests. “Courts have repeatedly said arrest is not mandatory, yet police continue to arrest accused persons. Even in cases where the parties were in a relationship for five or six years, arrests are being made. This appears to be another example of misuse of legal provisions,” the court said.
The court also raised concerns over the potential misuse of provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), particularly Section 69, which deals with offences related to false promises of marriage. The judge emphasized the need for safeguards to prevent misuse of criminal law and unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty.
During the proceedings, the court also questioned whether the dispute could be resolved amicably, including the possibility of marriage, though it did not issue any binding direction on that aspect.
The Additional Government Advocate informed the court that since the petitioner had already been arrested, the anticipatory bail plea had become infructuous, and the accused could file a regular bail application.
The High Court ultimately permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea seeking quashing of the FIR and granted liberty to file a fresh bail application. The court also orally observed that the accused should seek legal remedies for release from custody.
The ruling highlights the High Court’s concern over balancing the rights of complainants with the protection of personal liberty, and signals possible reforms in police procedures to prevent unnecessary arrests in such sensitive cases.
