Does a prosecution for a false promise of marriage require evidence that the accused had no intention, from the very beginning, of keeping the promise?

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s.69 — False promise of marriage — Quashing of FIR —

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s.69 — Intention from the very beginning —

Held: A prosecution for a false promise of marriage requires evidence that the accused had no intention, from the very beginning, of keeping the promise. (¶3, 4)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s.69 — Consensual relationship — No deceitful inducement —

Held further: Where the complaint discloses a consensual relationship with no deceitful inducement, there is no reason to allow continuation of the proceedings; FIR quashed. (¶5, 7)

Does a prosecution for a false promise of marriage require evidence that the accused had no intention, from the very beginning, of keeping the promise?

Yes. There must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time, that is, at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever of keeping his promise to marry; a person having the best of intentions who is later unable to marry owing to unavoidable circumstances does not thereby commit deceitful conduct. [¶3]

Does Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) require the promise to marry to have been made without any intention of fulfilling it?

Yes. Section 69 BNS carves out the fraudulent and deceitful conduct of making 'a promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same' as a separate offence from rape, bringing in the same rigor as the promise having been given with an intention of never being fulfilled. [¶4]

What did the Supreme Court finally decide on the appeal against refusal to quash the FIR alleging a false promise of marriage?

The appeal was allowed. Finding that the complaint disclosed a consensual relationship with no deceitful inducement, the Court quashed FIR No.11196030250292 dated 20.05.2025 registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat, and rejected any pending applications. [¶7, ¶8]

“3. The High Court while declining the prayer for quashing specifically referred to the judgment of this Court in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana[^1] of which paragraph 24 is extracted hereunder :”

“4. Under the IPC, the false promise of marriage was prosecuted under Section 375 read with Section 90. Therein the requirement was to find that the consent, if at all coming out from the facts, was tainted insofar as the victim having been led to believe a promise of marriage and physical relations having been permitted only on the belief that the promise will be complied with; which the promisor even at the time of giving such promise had no intention to comply with. It was held in the aforesaid decision that misconception of fact cannot be alleged if the promise is made with good intention and later for unavoidable circumstances, the person is forced to resile from the aforesaid promise. 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.”

“5. In the present case, the FIR has been extracted by the High Court and it clearly indicates that the appellant and the complainant came into contact through a digital platform and a friendship developed between them, which later became a love affair. It is also stated in the complaint that the appellant communicated his desire to marry the complainant on the first physical meeting. The complainant is said to have succumbed to his entreaties and allowed sexual intercourse. This was on 12.02.2024 and again in April 2024, the victim is said to have stayed in a hotel for two days with the appellant. 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. 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.”

“6. On the mere communication of the desire of the appellant to marry her, we are unable to find the appellant having used any deceitful means. 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.”

“7. 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.”