Calling Off Marriage After Courtship Not A Crime Or Breach Of Promise: Delhi HC [Read Order]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has ruled that calling off a marriage after a courtship period following a reasoned choice cannot be termed as a breach of promise to marry, while granting bail to a man accused of sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage, who lost his Dubai employment following his arrest.

Justice Arun Monga observed that when two consenting adults enter a relationship to explore marriage possibilities, but one party decides not to proceed after getting to know each other better, this legitimate exercise of choice cannot be misconstrued as a criminal breach of promise.

The court addressed Bail Application No. 3776/2025 filed by Naveen Yadav, who had been incarcerated since August 12, 2025, in FIR No. 341/2025 registered at Maurya Enclave Police Station for alleged offences under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

According to the prosecution case, the complainant came into contact with the applicant in April 2025 through matrimonial website Shaadidotcom. The applicant represented himself as well-settled in Dubai, claiming he worked there after completing his studies and would soon visit India, assuring her his family was agreeable to marriage.

The parties remained in regular contact through phone calls and WhatsApp, during which he repeatedly promised marriage. On June 9, 2025, he met the complainant at a restaurant in Noida where they discussed marriage plans.

On June 13, 2025, the applicant allegedly contacted the complainant, claiming his mother and sister wished to meet her before finalizing the marriage. He called her to Rohini West Metro Station and took her to White Saffron Hotel, Pitampura, informing her that his mother and sister would join them while asking her to stay with him in a booked room.

The complainant alleged that inside the room, the applicant made physical advances, and when she resisted, he reassured her by promising that they would soon marry and settle in Dubai. She claimed he also took objectionable photographs during this meeting.

Subsequently, when the complainant pressed for marriage, the applicant and his family allegedly began placing unlawful demands, including a flat worth ₹2–3 crores in Dubai, a luxury car, and cash, threatening that he would not marry her unless these conditions were fulfilled.

The complainant alleged she realized the applicant, conspiring with his mother and sister, had induced her with false promises of marriage, exploited her sexually, and raised illegal dowry demands. She lodged a complaint on August 11, 2025, leading to the applicant’s arrest on August 12, 2025.

The applicant’s counsel argued that his client was falsely implicated, contending that the complainant herself stated in a WhatsApp message that no physical intimacy or inappropriate incident occurred in the hotel room, directly contradicting the FIR allegations.

Relying on Supreme Court judgments including Prithvirajan v. State (2025), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), counsel argued that a consensual relationship based on a genuine intent to marry which subsequently fails due to intervening circumstances cannot amount to rape.

The defense highlighted that the applicant’s sudden arrest caused him to lose his Dubai employment, with his company terminating his services and reporting him to the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation, leading to him being declared an absconder and rendering him ineligible to work in the UAE for three years.

The counsel submitted that the applicant had earlier been granted interim bail on August 20, 2025, during which he expressed willingness to marry the complainant, but due to the unreasonable conduct of the complainant and her family, the marriage could not be solemnized. He then voluntarily surrendered, and his regular bail was dismissed on September 16, 2025.

The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the seriousness of allegations and apprehension that the applicant might abscond, threaten witnesses, or tamper with evidence if released.

Justice Monga found prima facie substance in certain arguments, noting that “at one stage, until she changes her stance, the complainant herself admitted in a WhatsApp message that no physical intimacy occurred, contradicting her own FIR.”

The court held that “the claim of a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage based on a failed genuine intent to marry does not constitute rape.”

In significant observations on courtship and marriage decisions, Justice Monga stated: “It seems to be an unfortunate case where two consenting adults entered into a relationship with the initial intention of exploring the possibility of marriage. However, after getting to know each other better, one party chose not to proceed with the alliance.”

The judge emphasized that “this legitimate exercise of choice has been misconstrued as a breach of promise. The very purpose of courtship or interaction prior to marriage is to assess mutual compatibility. To suggest that a person cannot change their mind after such interaction would defeat the essence of the concept itself.”

Regarding allegations of blackmail and dowry demand, Justice Monga observed that “even if assumed to be true, these do not attract Section 69 of BNS. They are distinct and independent offences, triable in accordance with law.”

The court noted that offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are bailable, and this was not a case where any dowry was given but merely an allegation of demand which never culminated in actual exchange.

Justice Monga highlighted the hardship caused by the arrest, noting that “the applicant’s sudden arrest also caused him severe loss, including termination of his Dubai job and a three-year UAE work ban, even though he initially got interim bail during which period he expressed willingness to marry.”

The court held that “further continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to the applicant’s family and serve no useful purpose, especially when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, as it violates the fundamental rule, i.e. bail is the rule and jail an exception.”

Finding no evidence suggesting the applicant would interfere with evidence or influence witnesses, and noting he is well-settled with deep roots in society and family, Justice Monga concluded there was no likelihood of absconding.

The court granted bail, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond with solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to usual conditions.

Justice Monga clarified that observations were made solely for bail purposes and should not be construed as any expression on the merits of the pending case, directing that the trial shall proceed without being influenced by these remarks.

Jitender Tyagi and Gaurav Bidhuri appeared for the applicant, while Sanjeev Sabharwal, Additional Public Prosecutor, represented the State.

Case Title: Naveen Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)

[Read Order]