False 69 BNS Case | āBreach Of Promise To Marry Due To Unavoidable Circumstances Is Not Rapeā: Supreme Court Finds No Initial Deceit, Quashes FIR Against Man
Curated by NEWS DESK
Editorial DeskCan a man face criminal prosecution merely because a genuine intention to marry could not finally turn into marriage? The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line between a deliberately false promise from the beginning and a promise that later fails because of unavoidable circumstances.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR against a man booked under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) over allegations that he entered into a physical relationship with a woman on a promise of marriage and later refused to marry her. The Court found that the complaint itself indicated a consensual relationship and did not show deceit from the beginning.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing the appeal filed by Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani. He challenged the refusal to quash FIR No. 11196030250292, registered on May 20, 2025, at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat.
According to the complaint, the man and woman met through a digital platform. Their friendship later developed into a love affair. The complaint stated that the appellant expressed his desire to marry her when they first met in person. They had physical relations on February 12, 2024, and the woman later stayed with him in a hotel for two days in April 2024.
While examining the case, the Supreme Court referred to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, where it had explained the difference between a deliberately false promise and a genuine promise that later could not be fulfilled.
The Court observed:
āThere may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances.ā
It further stressed that criminal liability cannot be fastened unless it is shown that from the very beginning, the accused never genuinely intended to marry.
The Supreme Court explained that under the Indian Penal Code, such cases were earlier examined under Section 375 read with Section 90 IPC. The key question was whether the promise was false from the very beginning. A promise made genuinely, but later not fulfilled because of unavoidable circumstances, does not automatically amount to deception.
The Court then examined Section 69 BNS, which separately deals with sexual intercourse by deceitful means or through a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it.
The Court highlighted the statutory expression:
āwithout any intention of fulfilling the sameā
According to the Court, this wording makes the intention at the time of making the promise crucial. The offence cannot be made out merely because the marriage did not eventually happen.
Applying this test, the Supreme Court found that the complaint showed a consensual relationship. It also noted that the complaint did not say that the woman agreed to the first physical relationship only because of a promise of marriage.
The Court further found that merely expressing a desire to marry could not, in these circumstances, be treated as deceit. The complaint itself stated that the appellant later refused to marry because his mother did not agree.
The Supreme Court said this circumstance indicated that the promise, if made, was genuine at that stage. Finding no basis to continue the prosecution, the Court quashed the FIR.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS
| Law / Section | What It Means | Application In This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 69 BNS | Deals with sexual intercourse by deceitful means or through a promise to marry made without intention of fulfilling that promise, where the act does not amount to rape. | The appellant was booked under this section. The Supreme Court found no material showing that his intention to marry was dishonest from the beginning and quashed the FIR. |
| Section 375 IPC | Defined the offence of rape under the IPC. | The Court discussed the earlier legal framework under which false-promise-to-marry allegations were considered along with the law governing consent. |
| Section 90 IPC | Deals with consent given under fear or misconception of fact and circumstances in which such consent is not treated as valid consent. | The Court referred to the earlier principle that failure to fulfil a genuine promise because of later unavoidable circumstances does not automatically establish misconception of fact. |
| Section 69 BNS vis-Ć -vis rape | Section 69 creates a distinct offence for specified deceitful conduct resulting in sexual intercourse that does not amount to rape. | The Supreme Court emphasised the requirement of deceitful intention at the stage when the promise was made. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. The State of Gujarat & Anr. |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Jurisdiction | Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11526 of 2026 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026 INSC 987 |
| Bench | Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran |
| Decision Date | September 7, 2026 |
| Result | Appeal allowed; FIR and proceedings quashed |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Failed marriage plans are not automatically a crime. A later breakup cannot by itself prove deceit.
- Intention from day one matters. Section 69 BNS requires proof that the promise was false from the beginning.
- Consent cannot be rewritten after the relationship ends. The Court found the relationship was consensual on the facts before it.
- A man should not face criminal prosecution merely because marriage became impossible later.
- Criminal law cannot become a weapon of retrospective punishment for failed relationships. Deceit must be proved, not assumed.
NEWS DESK
Legal news and court developments curated by the Shonee Kapoor editorial desk.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are moderated before publication.