Failed Relationship After Consensual Sex Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Criminalising failed romantic relationships strikes a fatal blow to individual identity and unnecessarily burdens the judicial machinery, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled while granting pre-arrest bail to an accused facing charges of sexual exploitation under the pretext of marriage. The Court held that consensual physical intimacy between mature adults cannot be retrospectively labeled as rape simply because the promise of marriage could not be fulfilled due to societal or personal intervening circumstances.

In a significant determination regarding the boundaries of criminal law in personal relationships, a single-judge bench of Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao heard a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Petitioner sought protection from arrest in a case registered under Sections 69, 115(2), and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Court's Rationale on Consensual Relationships

The Court observed that the Petitioner (27) and the Respondent No.2 (22) were both majors who had been in a love relationship for a significant period. Referring to the legal principles established in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra ( "MANU/SC/0787/2025": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 734), the Court noted that a relationship turning sour is not a ground for criminal prosecution. The bench further relied on the precedent in Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal and Naim Ahmed v. State of (NCT) of Delhi to emphasize that forensic evidence was often lacking in such delayed FIRs and that the 'misconception of fact' under rape laws must be strictly interpreted.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence."

Furthermore, the Court integrated the ratio from Bhawar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra ( "(2024) 11 SCC 398": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 932), noting that if a woman continues a relationship over a long period despite knowing of obstacles like different religious beliefs or family opposition, the consent is deemed a conscious and informed choice. The Court also cited Rajnish Singh v. State of U.P, Prithivirajan v. State, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra ( "(2019) 9 SCC 608": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 2769), Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand ( "(2020) 10 SCC 108": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 840), and Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State-Station House Officer to conclude that failed relationships do not retrospectively become criminal acts.

The Court has following directions:

"i. In the event of his arrest, Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;

ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required;

iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.

iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

v. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

 vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.

vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer."

Background

The dispute arose from an FIR lodged by the second respondent alleging that the Petitioner had sexual relations with her on multiple occasions by promising marriage, only to later refuse and plan a marriage with a relative. The Petitioner argued he was falsely implicated and was a law-abiding citizen. The State and Legal Aid counsel opposed the bail, citing the ongoing investigation. However, the Court found that the relationship appeared holistically consensual. Following the legal landscape defined by the Supreme Court across various precedents, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and granted the relief of anticipatory bail.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8452/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:47679
Case Title: Gongati Karunakar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): V V Lakshmi Narayana
For the Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor, Kuravati Lenin Babu (Legal Aid Counsel)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 19901