The Gujarat High Court said that entering into a physical relationship under the guise of a promise to marry and thereafter refusing marriage without assigning any reasons would attract Section 69 BNS which penalizes Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means.

Section 69 states that whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

"Deceitful means" shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity.

The petitioner claimed that he and the complainant knew each other for over 2 years and had been intimate. In 2024 the petitioner went to the house of complainant, and thereafter both the respects parents had agreed to the couple's marriage.

On the day the engagement was to take place, a family member of the petitioner passed away and therefore the engagement could not take place. Upon asking with regard to marriage, it was conveyed to the parents of the complainant that marriage is to be solemnized with the complainant.

Thereafter the complainant accompanied the petitioner to Udaipur where under the promise to marry, they both entered into sexual relations. Subsequently, a demand was raised by the petitioner's father for Rs.15 lakhs for continuation of the engagement which was agreed by the parents of the complainant.

In May this year when the complainant's father inquired with regard to date of marriage, the family members of the petitioner refused for the marriage and the petitioner also conveyed to the complainant that he does not want to marry her. In this background, the FIR was lodged under Section 69 BNS.

Justice MK Thakker observed that though the complainant is a mature lady aged around 23 years, however, it cannot be denied that under the guise of marriage sexual relationships were developed.

The court noted that there was no reason stated by the complainant or by the petitioner for not marrying each other. The court said:

"Without any reasons denying for the marriage after entering into the physical relationship under the guise to marry, in the opinion of this Court, would certainly attract the charges of Section 69 of the BNS. The object of enactment of Section 69 is to protect the sexual assault under the false promise of marriage.

It is not in dispute that there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex, however, upon examining the circumstances only, it can be inferred that whether the accused actually wanted to marry with the victim or had mala fide motives and had made false promise to satisfy his lust, and as latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception".

The court said that the "without citing any reasons" the accused refused to marry with the complainant which suggests that from inception his intent was not to marry her but under the guise of promise of marriage he entered into physical relationship.

"Considering the above discussion, in the opinion of this Court, when the cognizable offence is disclosed against the present petitioner and the case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the criteria stated in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, it cannot be said that the continuation of process is abuse of process of law and the powers under Section 482 is required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice," the court said.

The petition was dismissed.