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.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a special leave petition against a Gujarat High Court's order wherein it had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Gulati v State of Haryana to decline to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner.

The petitioner (appellant/accused) was booked under Section 69 BNS on the allegation that he had entered into a physical relationship with the complainant under the pretext of a promise to marry her, and later resiled from his promise citing his mother's disapproval of the match. Petitioner's plea for quashing the case against him was subsequently rejected by the High Court.

Aggrieved by the High Court's finding, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court relied on Deepak Gulati, which observed as, “there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The “failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term “misconception of fact”, the fact must have an immediate relevance”. Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her.”

For context, Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 28 of the BNS) deals with consent given under fear or misconception. It is to note that there was no provision in the IPC 1860 corresponding to Section 69 BNS when Deepak Gulati was decided.

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.”

While examining the FIR, the Court noted that the petitioner and the complainant had met on a digital platform, developed a friendship that turned into a love affair, and that the petitioner had expressed his desire to marry the complainant at their very first physical meeting. The complainant was stated to have “succumbed to his entreaties” and permitted sexual intercourse in February 2024. It is further noted that they both stayed at a hotel for two days in April 2024.

The bench, thus, found no indication of deceit in the facts and observed as, “the statements made in the complaint clearly indicate a consensual relationship and we do not find anything to find a deceitful conduct, of, the appellant having induced the complainant into sexual intercourse, which she succumbed to only on the promise to marry.”

The Court also pointed out that the complaint did not even allege that physical relations on the first occasion were conditioned upon a promise to marry. “Here we reiterate that on the first occasion when they met, the complainant succumbed to the appellant's entreaties, is the specific statement made without even stating that it was on the promise to marry that physical relationship was permitted,” it was observed.

The bench also took note of petitioner's subsequent communication of his desire to marry the complainant, and refused to consider it as amounting to deceit. It also noted that the complainant herself stated that the petitioner refused to marry her because his mother did not permit it, which suggested that the promise was made in good faith, if at all.

“In any event, the very complaint is that the appellant refused to marry her later, because his mother did not permit it, which indicates that the promise was made with all good intention, if at all it was made,” the bench noted.

In the light of above, the Supreme Court found no basis in allowing the proceedings to continue.

“We are unable to find any reason to allow continuation of the proceedings. We hence quash FIR bearing No.11196030250292 dated 20.05.2025, registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat,” the bench, thus, quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner.

Case: Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v State of Gujarat & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 925

Appearance:

For Petitioner: Mr Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, AOR; Mr Virat Popat, Adv.; Mr Ajay Kumar Rai, Adv.; Mr Shubham Singh, Adv.; Mr Dillip Kumar Nayak, Adv.; Mr Prabhat Chowdhary, Adv.; Mr Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Adv.; Ms. Shweta Lodha, Adv.

For Respondent: Ms Swati Ghildiyal, AOR; Ms Aneesha Rastogi, Adv.; Ms Apoorva Anand, Adv.; Mr PS Sridhar Raj, Adv.; Ms Prerana Chaturvedi, AOR; Mr Abhishek Pandey, Adv.; Mrs Sharmila Lenka, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download Order