The Gujarat High Court held that consensual relationships attract prosecution under S.69 BNS where marriage is later refused citing family opposition after a prima facie false promise.
Is The Line Between A Failed Relationship And Criminal Allegation Becoming Thinner For Men?
AHMADABAD: Justice M. K. Thakker of the Gujarat High Court refused to interfere in a criminal case filed against a man accused of inducing a woman into a relationship by promising marriage and later refusing to marry her.
The accused had approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the FIR registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
As per the complaint, the man and woman first connected through Facebook in November 2022 and gradually became close. The woman alleged that the man repeatedly spoke about marriage and later called her to Vadodara in February 2024.
According to the FIR, he booked a hotel room where they stayed together for two days and established physical relations after assuring her that he would marry her in December 2024.
The relationship continued for several months, but later in January 2025, the man allegedly refused to marry her by saying that his mother was against the marriage. The woman claimed that she tried several times to convince him, contacted him through WhatsApp, and even visited Mumbai, but he still refused. After her efforts failed, she finally lodged the FIR in May 2025.
Before the High Court, the accused argued that both were consenting adults and the relationship was voluntary. He also claimed that he had a genuine relationship with the complainant and even maintained contact with her family members. According to him, he had financially helped the complainant and her family and had also sent gifts and clothes to her, which showed that there was no false intention from the beginning.
The accused further argued that the FIR was filed after several months and therefore the allegations were doubtful. He also submitted that Section 69 of the BNS was wrongly used in this case.
However, the Gujarat High Court refused to accept these arguments at this stage. The Court observed that delay alone cannot become a ground to quash an FIR when serious allegations are made.
While examining Section 69 of BNS, the Court noted that the law specifically covers cases where sexual relations are established through “deceitful means” or a “promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same.”
The Gujarat High Court also referred to important Supreme Court judgments, including Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, and Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), while explaining the difference between a genuine failed relationship and a false promise made only to establish physical relations.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court observation that:
“There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise.”
The High Court noted that criminal liability may arise where the accused never genuinely intended to marry from the beginning itself.
After examining the facts, the Gujarat High Court observed that the accused allegedly promised marriage before establishing physical relations and later refused by citing his mother’s opposition. The Court held that merely blaming family opposition cannot automatically become a valid excuse.
The Court stated:
“Merely giving the explanation that mother is not agreed for the marriage cannot be considered to be bonafide reason.”
The High Court also noted that the accused was currently staying in Zambia and had allegedly not cooperated with the investigation.
Relying upon State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, the Court further observed that powers to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised only in rare cases. Finding no exceptional ground for interference, the High Court dismissed the application and allowed the investigation to continue.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved
| Law / Provision | Purpose | How It Applied In This Case |
| Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) | Punishes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or false promise of marriage without genuine intention to marry | The FIR alleged that the accused established physical relations after promising marriage and later refused to marry |
| Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) | Gives High Courts power to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings in appropriate cases | The accused approached the Gujarat High Court seeking quashing of the FIR under this provision |
| Section 63, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) | Defines and punishes rape offences | The Court clarified that the FIR was not registered under Section 63 but under Section 69 BNS |
| Section 120, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | Creates presumption regarding absence of consent in certain rape prosecutions | The Court referred to this section while discussing consent and sexual relations obtained through alleged false promises |
| Section 90, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Explains consent given under misconception of fact | The Court discussed Supreme Court rulings interpreting when consent obtained through false promises can become legally invalid |
| State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal Principles | Supreme Court guidelines on quashing criminal proceedings | The High Court relied upon these principles to hold that FIRs should be quashed only in rare and exceptional cases |
Case Details
- Case Title: Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Court: Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad
- Case Number: R/CR.MA/7256/2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice M. K. Thakker
- Neutral Citation: 2026:GJHC:240226
- Date of Judgment: 08 May 2026
- Counsels:
- For Applicant: Mr. Virat G. Popat
- For State: Mr. Ronak Raval, APP
Key Takeaways
- Modern relationship laws are increasingly converting private consensual relationships into serious criminal litigation once relationships fail or marriage discussions collapse.
- Men today face growing legal uncertainty because courts often examine “intentions” behind emotional promises made during relationships, even in long-term consensual adult affairs.
- In many relationship disputes, allegations made after breakup or refusal to marry can expose men to non-bailable offences carrying severe social, financial, and legal consequences.
- Family pressure, parental opposition, caste differences, or failed compatibility are common realities in Indian relationships, yet such situations can later become grounds for criminal prosecution against men.
- The expanding criminalisation of failed relationships continues to raise serious concerns about misuse, presumption against men, and the shrinking legal distinction between consensual intimacy and criminal allegations.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
