Police Pressuring Men To Marry In Section 69 BNS Cases — Ground Reality

Police cannot force a man to marry in Section 69 BNS cases. Know the law, court rulings, evidence, bail strategy and men’s rights.

NEW DELHI: A disturbing ground reality is emerging after the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita came into force.

In many Section 69 BNS cases, the first pressure on the man is not legal investigation.

It is this:

“Marry her, otherwise face arrest.”

This is not law.

This is police-station bargaining.

Section 69 BNS was not created to convert every failed relationship into a forced marriage. It was created to punish sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or by a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it.

There is a huge difference between deceit and disappointment.

There is a huge difference between exploitation and a relationship that failed.

There is a huge difference between a man who cheated from day one and a man who entered a relationship, tried, failed, or later refused marriage due to genuine reasons.

That difference is where men are being crushed.

WHAT SECTION 69 BNS ACTUALLY SAYS

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes a man who has sexual intercourse with a woman by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling that promise.

The section itself says this offence is “not amounting to rape.”

That one line is important.

Section 69 BNS is not automatically rape.

But it is still a serious criminal offence. It is cognizable, non-bailable, triable by a Court of Session, and punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and fine.

This is why the police pressure becomes powerful.

The man is told:

“Either marry her or go to jail.”

That is not investigation.

That is coercion.

POLICE CANNOT USE MARRIAGE AS A BAIL CONDITION, SETTLEMENT TOOL OR THREAT

A police station is not a marriage bureau.

A criminal complaint under Section 69 BNS cannot be converted into a forced wedding negotiation.

If the allegation is true, the law must investigate it.

If the allegation is false, the man must not be forced to surrender his life, liberty and marriage choice to escape arrest.

Marriage cannot be extracted through fear of arrest.

A forced marriage does not become respectable merely because it happened inside or outside a police station.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that in sexual offence matters, courts should not encourage compromise or marriage as a solution. If even courts are not supposed to convert such cases into marriage settlements, police officers certainly cannot use arrest pressure to push a man into marriage.

THE BRUTAL GROUND REALITY

In many such cases, the relationship is already over.

There are chats, calls, photographs, trips, gifts, hotel records, family meetings and years of mutual consent.

Then marriage does not happen.

Suddenly, the entire relationship is rewritten as cheating, exploitation or false promise.

• The man is called to the police station.
• He is told not to bring a lawyer.
• He is made to sit for hours.
• His family is threatened.
• His phone is checked.
• His parents are called.

Then the demand begins:

“Marry her and matter will finish.”

But the matter does not automatically finish.

An FIR does not vanish because a man was pressured to marry.

A criminal case is not deleted by a police-station compromise.

Only a competent court can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases.

This is the trap.

A man marries under pressure thinking the criminal case will end.

Later, the same marriage becomes another battlefield — maintenance, domestic violence, cruelty, divorce, custody, fresh allegations, and sometimes another FIR.

SECTION 69 BNS PUNISHES DECEIT, NOT FAILED LOVE

The core legal question is simple:

Did the man make a false promise of marriage from the very beginning, without any intention to marry?

If yes, Section 69 BNS may apply.

If no, a failed relationship cannot automatically become a criminal case.

The Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v State of Maharashtra made the distinction clear. Breach of promise and false promise are not the same thing. A false promise means the promise was false when it was made.

The Supreme Court in Naim Ahamed v State (NCT of Delhi) warned that it would be unsafe and foolish to treat every breach of promise to marry as a false promise.

The Supreme Court in Mahesh Damu Khare v State of Maharashtra again held that the physical relationship must be directly traceable to the false promise. If the relationship continued for other reasons, circumstances, affection, choice, intimacy, or mutual consent, the court must examine the facts carefully.

In Rajnish Singh @ Soni v State of U.P., the Supreme Court quashed a case where a long consensual relationship was later alleged as rape on false promise of marriage. The Court noted that a prolonged consensual relationship between adults cannot automatically be treated as force, deception or exploitation.

This is the law.

But at the police-station level, many men are not being asked legal questions.

They are being asked only one question:

“Will you marry her or not?”

WHAT COURTS ARE SAYING IN SECTION 69 BNS CASES

Recent courts have started drawing the correct line.

In one Delhi Court matter under Section 69 BNS, bail was granted where the relationship was long, consensual, and the facts did not immediately show that the man had cheated from day one. The court noted that a long consensual relationship cannot automatically be called exploitation or deceit.

The Allahabad High Court has observed in a Section 69 BNS context that the provision punishes deceit, not disappointment.

The Karnataka High Court has similarly cautioned that criminal process cannot become a weapon of retaliation where a relationship collapses.

At the same time, courts have also made it clear that genuine deceit can attract Section 69 BNS.

For example, where a man is already married and allegedly promises marriage despite knowing that he cannot lawfully marry, courts may refuse to quash the case at the threshold.

So the law is not saying every man is innocent.

The law is saying every failed relationship is not a crime.

That is the difference police must understand.

WHY FORCED MARRIAGE CAN CREATE ANOTHER LEGAL DISASTER

If a man marries only because police threatened arrest, that marriage itself may become legally questionable.

Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, consent obtained by force or fraud can make a marriage voidable in appropriate circumstances.

Under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, consent obtained by coercion or fraud can also make the marriage voidable.

But proving coercion later is not always easy.

That is why men should not quietly walk into a forced marriage and later expect the system to automatically understand their helplessness.

If police pressure is happening, it must be documented immediately.

Names, dates, station details, call recordings where legally permissible, messages, notices, witnesses and written complaints matter.

A man must not create a lifelong legal mess just to survive one evening of police pressure.

WHAT A MAN SHOULD NOT DO IN A SECTION 69 BNS POLICE PRESSURE CASE

• Do not marry under police pressure.
• Do not sign an apology letter admitting guilt.
• Do not write “I used her” or “I cheated her” just to leave the police station.
• Do not hand over your phone without legal advice unless seizure procedure is followed.
• Do not delete chats, photos, call logs, hotel records or payment records.
• Do not meet the complainant privately after the FIR or complaint.
• Do not pay cash settlement without proper legal documentation.
• Do not believe that marriage will automatically close the FIR.
• Do not assume that because the relationship was consensual, arrest is impossible.

Section 69 BNS is serious. Treat it seriously from day one.

WHAT A MAN SHOULD DO IMMEDIATELY

First, collect the complete factual history.

• When did the relationship start?
• Who initiated marriage discussion?
• Were families involved?
• Was there any engagement?
• Were there disagreements over caste, religion, family, finances, compatibility, previous marriage, employment or relocation?
• Did the woman know the facts now being called deceit?
• Did the relationship continue after alleged refusal?
• Were there threats, demands or messages after breakup?

These facts decide whether the case is genuine criminal deceit or a failed relationship being criminalised.

Second, preserve evidence.

Chats, emails, call records, travel bookings, hotel entries, photographs, gifts, UPI payments, social media posts, family meeting proof and breakup messages may become crucial.

Third, appear through counsel.

A Section 69 BNS case is not a casual counselling matter.

Fourth, prepare for bail strategy.

Since Section 69 BNS is cognizable and non-bailable, bail planning is not optional.

Fifth, consider High Court remedy.

If the FIR itself does not show the basic ingredients of Section 69 BNS, the High Court can be approached under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

THE EVIDENCE THAT USUALLY SAVES MEN

In false promise-to-marry cases, courts do not decide only on emotions.

They look at evidence.

The most important evidence is usually:

• Chats showing mutual relationship and consent.
• Messages showing the woman knew the real facts.
• Proof that marriage discussions were genuine, not fraudulent.
• Family meetings or social acceptance.
• Breakup messages showing later dispute, not initial cheating.
• Delay in FIR without proper explanation.
• Continued relationship after alleged betrayal.
• Evidence of pressure to marry after complaint.
• Proof that refusal happened due to genuine circumstances.
• Contradictions in complaint and later statements.

A man’s defence must be built on documents, not anger.

Courts do not acquit men because they cry louder.

Courts protect men when facts, timelines and evidence expose the false criminal colour given to a failed relationship.

WHAT IF THE CASE IS FALSE?

If the case is false, the man should not merely defend.

He must document the falsehood.

Section 248 BNS punishes false charge of offence made with intent to injure.

But this is not a toy provision.

A man cannot simply file a counterblast because he is angry.

He must first build a record showing false implication, contradictions, coercion, mala fide conduct and absence of legal ingredients.

False cases are fought with patience.

• Not panic.
• Not forced marriage.
• Not emotional confession.

THE REAL MEN’S RIGHTS POSITION

Men are not asking for protection from genuine law.

Men are asking for protection from misuse of law.

If a man deceived a woman from day one, let him face law.

But if two adults had a relationship, travelled together, stayed together, spoke of marriage, fought, separated, and later one side used criminal law as revenge, then the man cannot be pushed into jail or forced marriage merely because he is male.

Section 69 BNS must not become a police-station weapon to convert breakups into marriages.

A man has the right to say no to marriage.

A woman has the right to legal remedy if she was truly deceived.

Both things can be true.

But no police officer has the right to say:

“Marry her or I will arrest you.”

That sentence is not law.

That sentence is abuse of power.

FINAL WORD

Section 69 BNS cases will become one of the biggest battlegrounds in men’s rights litigation.

Because the danger is not only conviction.

The danger begins much earlier — at the complaint stage, at the police station, before the FIR, before bail, before the man even understands the trap.

The message is clear:

• Do not run.
• Do not panic.
• Do not confess.
• Do not marry under pressure.
• Preserve evidence.
• Take legal help.
• Fight on facts.

Because in court, the question is not whether the relationship failed.

The question is whether there was deceit from the beginning.

And that is where many false Section 69 BNS cases will collapse.

FAQs