'Deceitful Means' | Marriage Promise By Already Married Man Prima Facie Attracts Section 69 BNS : Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Avnish Saxena noted that since the accused was already married when he entered into a relationship with the victim, the alleged promise to marry her prima facie amounted to 'deceitful means' as contained under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means).

The bench thus dismissed his petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Case in brief

Briefly put, the opposite party no. 2 (the victim) lodged an FIR under Sections 69, 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the BNS in June last year against the accused-applicant, alleging that he had entered into sexual intercourse with her by making a false promise of marriage.

She claimed that she had been in a relationship with him since 2014-15 and that he kept her as his wife but always refused to marry her formally and only solemnised a marriage in an Arya Samaj Temple.

She further accused him of violently hurting her with kicks and fists while entering into sexual relations and threatening to defame her if she spoke out.

After lodging the FIR, she reportedly discovered his true marital status and the fact that he had three children.

On the other hand, seeking the quashing of the charge sheet, the accused submitted that relations between him and the victim were consensual in nature and had continued since 2014.

It was also his argument that the allegation of "false promise of marriage" could not be sustained because, according to the victim herself, she was already married to the applicant at an Arya Samaj Mandir.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the bench noted that, as per the allegations, the sexual relations between the parties were established for the first time due to the unconsciousness of the victim and subsequently, on the false promise of marriage.

It also noted that, at one time, the parties resided as husband and wife in the same house and that the victim's statement revealed that she learned of the applicant's prior marriage only after lodging the FIR.

Against this backdrop, the single judge examined the scope of Section 69 BNS, noting that it makes sexual intercourse with a woman by "deceitful means" a punishable offence.

The Court further noted that under the Explanation attached to this provision, 'deceitful means' includes “the false promise of employment or promotion, inducement, or marrying after suppressing identity”.

Justice Saxena observed that the accused prima facie knew from the beginning that he could not marry the victim, as he was already married. The circumstances suggested that the alleged promise was a false one, as it was impossible to fulfil the same since the begining.

The bench, however, added that whether the victim actually knew about the prior marriage of the accused was a matter of evidence to be deciphered during the trial.

Importantly, the Court also highlighted the aggravated nature of the allegations given the accused's position of authority in this case.

Noting that the charge sheet was not submitted under the offence of rape, the Court opined that it would be 'expedient' in the interest of justice that the provision of rape under Section 63 of BNS is required to be dealt with along with Section 64(2)(f).

For context, Section 64(2)(f) of the BNS deals with rape committed by a teacher or a person in a position of trust.

In fact, the bench also referred to Section 120 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) (Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape), which states that for offences under Section 64(2), when intercourse by the accused is proved and the woman states in her evidence that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.

Thus, finding a prima facie case against the accused, the bench dismissed the plea to quash the charge sheet and the cognizance order.

Case title - Kuldeep Verma vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 20