The Supreme Court said that both of them lived together for two years, and what happened after that is not an allegation of violence but an allegation of betrayal, hence it is not a case of having physical relations by deceiving from the beginning.

Karnataka High Court quashes rape case against petitioner.

The Karnataka High Court, while hearing a rape case , made a significant observation. The court stated that the law does not criminalize heartbreak. It also stated that while marriage is denied after a consensual relationship, it is sad, but it cannot be considered rape.

According to a Live Law report, the court was hearing a petition filed by a man seeking the quashing of an FIR filed against him by a woman under sections 69 and 115(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 2023. In the FIR, the woman had accused the petitioner of having a relationship with her on the false promise of marriage.

Karnataka High Court judge Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, 'Where two adults have physical relations with mutual consent for a long time, and thereafter the man refuses to marry the woman, then no matter how regrettable this act is, that relationship cannot be converted into the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC on this basis alone.'

The court also noted in its order that a full reading of the complaint reveals no mention of coercion, fraud, or force. The complaint describes a two-year live-in relationship, a shared domestic life, and a consensual relationship.

The court stated that the two years they lived together, and what followed thereafter, involved an allegation of infidelity, not violence. Therefore, this was not a case of physical intimacy under false pretenses. It is a well-established principle of law that heartbreak is not considered a crime.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that a promise of marriage is considered false if it is proven that the promise was merely a deceptive or fraudulent ploy, never intended to be fulfilled. The court stated that a change of heart or incompatibility, family opposition, or simply a reluctance to marry cannot constitute criminal intent at the outset of the relationship.

The court dismissed the complaint against the petitioner, stating that the criminal justice system should not be used as a weapon to combat failed relationships. The petitioner met the woman in Ireland, where they were both pursuing their studies. Their friendship later blossomed into love, and they decided to live in a live-in relationship.

The woman stated in the FIR that the two had lived in a live-in relationship for a long time and had a physical relationship during that time. She was previously married and had a child. However, she stated that her divorce from her husband was already pending. Later, her relationship with the petitioner deteriorated, and upon returning to India, she filed a case against him for allegedly having an affair with her under false pretenses of marriage.