S.69 BNS | Refusal To Marry Citing Mother's Disapproval Prima Facie Smacks Of Mala Fides: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash FIR
The Gujarat High Court refused to quash a Secition 69 BNS FIR lodged against a man–stated to be permanent resident of Zambia, accused of having sexual intercourse with the complainant deceitfully over false promise of marriage.In doing so the court rejected the accused's contention that his mother did not agree to the relationship observing that this was not a bonafide reason. Justice...
The Gujarat High Court refused to quash a Secition 69 BNS FIR lodged against a man–stated to be permanent resident of Zambia, accused of having sexual intercourse with the complainant deceitfully over false promise of marriage.
In doing so the court rejected the accused's contention that his mother did not agree to the relationship observing that this was not a bonafide reason.
Justice MK Thakker in her order said:
"As per the recital of the FIR, the complainant was kept in the room from 12.02.2022 to 14.02.2024, and the promise to marry with her in the month of December 2024, the applicant indulged into physical relations. Subsequently, it was informed that the mother of the applicant is not agreed with the relations the applicant denied to marry with the victim. Whether this act or the explanation can suggest that the applicant really wanted to marry with the victim or had malafide motives? It emerges from the allegations that only to satisfy his lust the false promise of marriage was given to the complainant though he had no intention to marry with her. Merely giving the explanation that mother is not agreed for the marriage cannot be considered to be bonafide reason or the circumstances which is beyond the control of the applicant.It is the applicant who before indulging into the relations could have taken the sense of the mother, however, denying subsequently smokes of malafide motive of the applicant".
The court said that the investigation was at large and the applicant is staying at Zambia and "did not cooperate with the investigation". The court was hearing the applicant's plea seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 69 BNS.
The complainant had alleged that the applicant took her to a hotel and under the pretext of marriage indulged into physical relations. It is submitted that as per the allegations, the applicant had assured to get married with the complainant in the month of December 2024, and later in January 2025, the applicant refused to marry the complainant as his mother did not accept their relationship.
The applicant submitted that he is a permanent resident of Zambia, and during the period when the applicant was in contact with the complainant he was also in contact with the mother of the complainant, and has provided the financial assistance by transferring the amount of Rs.40,000.
It was submitted that the applicant has also sent the mobile phones and clothes to the complainant from Mumbai amounting to Rs.32,000/- as well as was in contact with the maternal aunt of the complainant.
He said that these aspects clearly demonstrates that the relationship between the applicant and the complainant was cordial, voluntary and genuine in nature, and applicant had never extended any false promises or induced the complainant as alleged in the FIR.
It was submitted that the alleged incident has taken place during the 12.02.2024 to 01.01.2025, and the FIR came to be lodged after delay of approximately five months from the date of alleged incident which creates serious doubts about the veracity and genuineness of the allegations made against the applicant.
It was submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted to be true, no primafacie cognizable case is made out leveling the charge under Section 69 of the BNS.
The court referred to Section 69 BNS and noted that Supreme Court had in Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana drawn a clear distinction between false promise of marriage which is given on understanding by maker that it would be broken and breach of promise which is made in good faith, but subsequently not fulfilled. It is the former which outrightly attracts the penal provision.
The court said that it was not the case of the applicant that some ceremonies were performed or due to the circumstances which were beyond the control of the applicant, he was unable to marry the victim though he actually wanted to marry her.
Finding no reason to interference the court dismissed the petition.
Case title: KUNAL RAMESHBHAI KALYANI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 7256 of 2026