LiveLaw Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: September 2026
SUPREME COURT Supreme Court Explains S.69 BNS: No Offence Of Deceitful Sex By Breach Of Genuine Marriage Promise Case: Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v State of Gujarat & Anr. The Supreme Court has recently quashed an FIR registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse for which consent was obtained by deceitful means,...
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Explains S.69 BNS: No Offence Of Deceitful Sex By Breach Of Genuine Marriage Promise
Case: Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v State of Gujarat & Anr.
The Supreme Court has recently quashed an FIR registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse for which consent was obtained by deceitful means, such as false promise to marry, after finding that the complaint itself disclosed a consensual relationship rather than a deceitful inducement. It also noted that refusal to marry because the accused's mother did not permit it, does not amount to deceit.
Explaining the legal position of Section 69, the bench observed that under the IPC, a false promise of marriage was prosecuted under Section 375 read with Section 90 (now Section 63 and Section 28 of the BNS, respectively), which required proof that consent was vitiated because the victim was made to believe in a promise which the accused, even at the time of making it, never intended to fulfil.
The Court held that, “the BNS by incorporating Section 69 brought in a separate offence carving out the fraudulent and deceitful conduct as spoken of therein from the grave offence of rape, while at the same time providing a penalty for the deceptive conduct alleged therein. The word employed “deceitful means or by making a promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same” brings in the same rigor of the promise having been given with an intention of never being fulfilled, which is the deceitful conduct sought to be punished.”
Cause Title: Subhas Chandra Sarkar Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Supreme Court has held that a victim's appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate lies before the Court of Session and not the High Court.
“…when there is a conviction in a trial held by a Magistrate of the First Class or the Second Class, an appeal lies to the Sessions Court. Going by the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, an appeal filed by a victim against an order of acquittal also has to be before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. The order of acquittal passed by a learned Magistrate, hence, has to be appealed before the Court in which a conviction ordered by a Magistrate can be appealed, which is the Sessions Court.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while affirming the Calcutta High Court's order which had refused to entertain the petitioner-victim's appeal against the acquittal, while granting them leave to file an appeal before the Sessions Court.
Case: Umar and Anr v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
The Supreme Court recently held that where a Magistrate applied judicial mind and found a prima facie case only after the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) came into force, cognizance is deemed to have been taken on that date. The accused, therefore, had to be heard first, as the proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS requires.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside a Special Judge's order to the extent it found a prima facie case and took cognizance.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case Title - Avdhesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 673
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere ownership of premises cannot create vicarious criminal liability on a landlord for an accidental death unless the prosecution material discloses a legally attributable negligent act or omission on the part of the owner.
A bench Justice Saurabh Srivastava made the observation while quashing the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order and entire criminal proceedings against a landlord in connection with the January 2025 death of a young student, an IIT Aspirant, in a bathroom where a gas geyser was installed.
At the outset, the High Court observed that the mere occurrence of death in the premises of the applicant would not, by itself, be sufficient for fastening criminal liability under Section 106 BNS.
Case Title - Chandrakanta vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 713
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to consider making audio-video recording of statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS 'mandatory', observing that such a step would make criminal investigations more transparent and fair.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the direction while dealing with a bail application filed by a woman accused in a dowry-related case.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Title: SHIVDHAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
The Delhi High Court has held that a victim of an offence can prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal or conviction for a lesser offence under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), without being required to seek leave to appeal, unlike the State or a complainant challenging an order of acquittal. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 802]
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC, and the corresponding proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Title: SUB INSPECTOR JITENDER & ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR & other connected matter
The Delhi High Court is set to decide a question as to whether a Special Court, after finding that no offence under any special statute is prima facie made out, should transmit an application seeking registration of an FIR under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to the concerned Magistrate.
Justice Girish Kathpalia raised the question while hearing two pleas filed by various police officials from Delhi and Haryana challenging an order passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), directing the concerned DCP to register an FIR against them under relevant provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Case title: Anil Ahluwalia v. State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court has held that a party cannot ordinarily invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) as a “backdoor entry” to challenge an order after having unsuccessfully exhausted the revisional remedy, unless the case involves grave miscarriage of justice.
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that although the inherent powers of the High Court are wide, they cannot be exercised routinely in a manner that renders the statutory bar under Section 438(3) BNSS otiose.
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Case Title: Shri Suraj Chetry v. Smti. Nayanmoni Choudhury
The Gauhati High Court has held that maintenance proceedings cannot be quashed where the nature of the alleged marital relationship between the parties requires determination through evidence at trial.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma observed, "Although the contradictory statements of the respondent made in different proceedings as to the dates and places of marriage do create some doubt regarding the factum of marriage, it is trite law that in a proceeding under Section 144 BNSS, it is sufficient to establish a relationship in the nature of husband and wife and the same can be established only in the course of a trial by adducing evidence."
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Case Title: Mumtaz Mehraj and Another v. UT of J&K and Others
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a violation of a Civil Court's status quo order must be dealt with under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and not by resorting to proceedings under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court observed that when possession of a party was protected by an interim order of the Civil Court, there was no occasion for the Executive Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 164 BNSS.
Case Title: Ali Hussain Shah v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has granted bail to an MTS official posted at Sub-Treasury Dharmari, Reasi, in a case alleging embezzlement of ₹1,38,17,971 from the government exchequer, holding that the statutory bar under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was not attracted to the offences alleged against him.
Admitting him on bail Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani observed that in non-bailable offences not carrying death or life imprisonment in the alternative, “bail is a rule and its denial an exception”, particularly where custodial questioning is not imperative and there is no material indicating that the accused would misuse liberty by tampering with evidence, failing to cooperate or absconding.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case: Krishna Murthy @ Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Others
The Karnataka High Court has held that a part-heard criminal trial which has not crossed stage of examination of accused, final arguments nor has been reserved for judgment can be transferred to another court and in such circumstances accused cannot insist upon the same presiding officer to continue hearing his case.
Noting the legislative intent behind Section 365 (Conviction or commitment on evidence partly recorded by one Magistrate and partly by another) of the BNSS, the Court said, “If every transfer after commencement of trial were impermissible, the Legislature would scarcely have found it necessary to enact Section 365 of the BNSS or its statutory predecessor – Section 326 of the Cr.P.C. and expressly declare the consequence of a transfer from one Judge to another.”
Case: C SWAMY VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANOTHER
The Karnataka High Court has mandated all the trial courts in the State to adhere to Section 330 BNSS, corresponding to Section 294(3) CrPC, to ensure the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
Noting the voluminous evidence placed in CBI case and the inordinate delay caused by it, the High Court said, “In almost all trials especially in CBI cases where voluminous documents are placed on record to establish the case of the prosecution. Many times the voluminous documents contain some documents for which there cannot be any dispute as to its genuineness and for placing those documents or exhibits have to be marked in the case, witnesses are to be called and they need to be examined formally.”
To “obviate such procedural formalities”, the Court noted that compliance under Section 207 CrPC (Section 230 BNSS) in police-instituted cases and Section 208 CrPC (Section 231 BNSS) in private complaints must be ensured. The provision deal with the supply of necessary case documents and witness statements to the accused and the victim to ensure a fair trial.
Case Title: Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man who was booked by Athani Police for allegedly putting up barricades in front of his shop and making insulting remarks against the Prime Minister when he was questioned by a social worker. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 378]
The single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T held that the complaint did not disclose intentional insult to the complainant, and mere abuse or rudeness may not amount to an offence under Section 352 BNS.
Case: Sri Mohan Gowda v. State of Karnataka and Another
The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, has issued two comprehensive circulars directing strict compliance with Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the law declared by the Supreme Court on arrest and personal liberty, in compliance with directions issued by the High Court earlier.
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna had on August 29 directed the DGP to issue binding guidelines after the Whitefield Police Constable was found to have travelled to Udupi to take a man into custody over a Facebook post, allegedly serving the Section 35(3) notice only after he was already taken into custody.
Case: SRI SURESH @ SURESH NAIK K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
The Karnataka High Court has held that mere knowledge of where valuable articles are kept, coupled with general suspicion, cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution for theft, while quashing an FIR registered against a man under Section 305 BNS.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that when different complaints made by family members disclose materially contradictory versions regarding missing gold articles, then allowing investigation to continue against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The Karnataka High Court has held that once a victim's statement is recorded before a jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS the Investigating Officer (IO) cannot independently record a further statement of the victim.
“Even if the Investigating Officer had to record the further statement of the victim girl, after her statement was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 before the jurisdictional Magistrate, he ought to have produced the victim girl before the jurisdictional Magistrate for recording her further statement and he could not have proceeded to independently record her further statement,” Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty said, while allowing the criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Zahid Shanavas v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has held that a subsequent failure to fulfil a promise of marriage cannot, by itself, retrospectively convert consensual sexual intercourse into a criminal offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 491]
The Court found that the FIS did not specifically allege that the accused knew about the pending divorce proceedings or that he had promised to marry the complainant after her existing marriage was dissolved.
In these circumstances, the Court held that the allegation that the complainant consented to the sexual relationship solely on the basis of a promise of marriage could not, on the face of the FIS, establish the necessary ingredients of Section 69 BNS.
Case Title: Roji Augustine v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has held that the statutory requirement under Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, requiring a complaint case to be stayed when a police investigation is pending, applies only when both proceedings concern the same offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 516]
The Court noted that the purpose of the provision is to prevent parallel proceedings concerning the same offences and thereby protect the accused from unnecessary harassment.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Absence From Duty, Proxy Teaching At Most Service Misconduct; Not Cheating: MP High Court
Case Title: Roop Singh Chadar v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-23406-2026
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a cheating FIR lodged against a government teacher for substituting another person to perform his teaching duties, observing that the said allegations at most constitute service misconduct. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 377]
Observing that the FIR did not disclose any essential ingredients of cheating, the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi held,
"Even otherwise, a plain reading of Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita indicates that the essential ingredients of cheating include deception, dishonest inducement and consequential delivery of property or wrongful gain. The allegations contained in the FIR do not disclose any act of inducement, fraudulent representation or delivery of property attributable to the applicant. At the highest, the allegations may constitute a matter relating to service misconduct warranting departmental action. However, the material placed on record does not disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS".
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Mohapatra & Ors. v. State of Odisha
The Orissa High Court has ruled that the sixty-days period provided to accused for filing discharge application under Section 262(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is not a rigid or non-negotiable “moratorium” and that trial court may proceed to frame charge after allowing a “reasonable interval” to elapse after supply of police papers to accused under Section 230 of the BNSS. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 106]
While deciding a quashing petition filed against an order framing charge on the very day of supply of police papers, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held–
“To read Section 262(1) as imposing and rigid, non-negotiable sixty-day moratorium before which charge cannot be framed, regardless of whether the accused has invoked or intends to invoke that right, would be to convert a provision designed as a shield for the accused into a sword against the very object of the Sanhita, that is, the timely trial. Such a construction would also open the floodgates to a wave of technical challenges devoid of any substantive grievance, converting Section 262(1) from a right of opportunity into an instrument of delay which the Legislature could scarcely have intended.”
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.528 BNSS | High Court's Inherent Powers Can't Be Used As Disguised Second Revision: P&H High Court
Case Title: Rampal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to invoke High Court's inherent powers against an order passed by a Sessions Court in revision operates within an "extraordinarily constricted domain", and the petitioner must show an egregious failure of justice or a glaring jurisdictional defect.
Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a challenge to a Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order directing a receiver to hand over about 514 kanals of land in District Kaithal to a samadh. The petitioners had claimed the land under a 99-year lease executed in 1970.
TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Case Name: Billal Miah v/s The State of Tripura
The Tripura High Court has held that Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) mandates registration of an FIR where a complaint discloses cognizable offences, even when the allegations are directed against police personnel.
The court made the observation while directing registration of a complaint alleging misappropriation of gold ornaments and gold bars following the interception of a vehicle by police officials.
The Division Bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha remarked that: “When a citizen lodges a specific complaint disclosing the commission of cognizable offences involving alleged misappropriation and high-handedness by police personnel, the statutory mandate under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires the registration of an FIR and an impartial investigation.”
Case Title: Dipankar Majumder & Anr. v. The State of Tripura & Anr.
The Tripura High Court has held that after the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) came into force, a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence on a complaint without first giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. The Court clarified that the requirement under the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS is mandatory.