Supreme Court: In a significant judgment, while examining the scope of Section 69, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) in the context of an allegation that sexual relations were established on the promise of marriage, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., distinguished a promise to marry made with a fraudulent intention from the outset from a genuine promise that is subsequently not fulfilled because of circumstances arising later. The Court held that a mere subsequent failure or refusal to marry does not, by itself, attract Section 69 BNS. There must be material indicating that the promise to marry was made without any intention of fulfilling it when the promise was made. The Court quashed the FIR, holding that the allegations in the FIR disclosed a consensual relationship and did not establish deceitful conduct within Section 69 BNS.
Watch Now: False promise of marriage cases: Allahabad HC on pre-trial quashing under Section 69 BNS
Background
The complainant and the appellant came into contact through a digital platform. Their interaction developed into friendship and subsequently into a love affair. During their first physical meeting, the appellant communicated his desire to marry the complainant.
The complainant thereafter permitted sexual intercourse. The first such occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 12 February 2024. Further, in April 2024, the complainant stayed with the appellant in a hotel for two days.
The appellant subsequently resiled from his promise to marry, allegedly because his mother was not agreeable to the marriage. On this basis, a FIR was registered on 20 May 2025 at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, alleging an offence under Section 69 BNS.
Relying on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675, the High Court declined to quash the FIR. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Issue for Determination
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed the “deceitful means” or a promise to marry made “without any intention of fulfilling the same”, so as to constitute an offence under Section 69 BNS?
Also Read: A Sour Relationship Isn’t a False Promise: Uttaranchal HC Quashes Rape Charge Over Tinder Match
Analysis
At the outset, the Court drew distinction between the legal position under the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the newly enacted BNS. Under the IPC, cases involving a false promise of marriage were examined principally through Section 375 read with Section 90 IPC. The central inquiry was whether the woman’s consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact because she had permitted sexual relations believing that the promise of marriage would be honoured. The Court noted that in Deepak Gulati, it was held that “misconception of fact cannot be alleged if the promise is made with good intention and later for unavoidable circumstances, the person is forced to resile from the aforesaid promise”.
The Court noted that Section 69 BNS creates a separate offence, carving out the fraudulent and deceitful conduct contemplated therein from the more serious offence of rape, while nevertheless prescribing punishment for such deceptive conduct. It noted that the statutory expression “deceitful means or by making a promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same” in Section 69 BNS imports the same essential requirement, the promise must have been made with an intention from the outset that it would never be fulfilled. Section 69 seeks to punish this deceptive conduct.
|
False promise |
Broken/subsequently unfulfilled promise |
|
Promise made without intention of fulfilling it |
Promise initially made with genuine intention |
|
Deception exists at the inception |
Subsequent circumstances prevent fulfilment |
|
Sexual relationship is induced through that deception |
Mere subsequent refusal does not establish deception |
Therefore, the decisive consideration is the intention of the promisor at the time the promise was made, not merely the fact that the marriage ultimately did not take place.
The Court examined the FIR and found that the allegations did not disclose the requisite deceitful conduct. The complaint showed that the appellant and complainant initially met through a digital platform, their relationship developed from friendship into a love affair, the appellant expressed his desire to marry the complainant during their first physical meeting, sexual relations thereafter took place, the complainant also stayed with the appellant in a hotel for two days in April 2024 and the eventual refusal to marry was attributed to the appellant’s mother not permitting the marriage.
The Court considered the complaint to indicate a consensual relationship and found no material showing that the appellant had deceitfully induced the complainant into sexual intercourse on the basis of a promise of marriage. It placed significance on the wording of the complaint itself which stated to have “succumbed to the appellant’s entreaties” on the first occasion. The complaint did not specifically state that sexual relations were permitted because of a promise to marry.
The Court considered this circumstance to indicate that, if a promise to marry had indeed been made, it was made with good intention, rather than with an intention from the very beginning to deceive the complainant. Therefore, the Court held that the mere communication of the appellant’s desire to marry could not, in the circumstances, be characterised as the use of deceitful means.
Decision
The Court found no reason to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, it quashed FIR dated 20 May 2025, registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat and allowed the appeal. Any pending application was also rejected.
[Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11526 of 2026, decided on 7-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Virat Popat, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Rai, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Dillip Kumar Nayak, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shweta Lodha, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, AOR
For the Respondents: Ms. Aneesha Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Apoorva Anand, Adv. Mr. P S Sridhar Raj, Adv. Ms. Prerana Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Sharmila Lenka, Adv.