LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 07 September 2026

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?

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. The State of Gujarat & Anr
2026 INSC 987
Coram: Justice J. B. Pardiwala · Justice K. Vinod Chandran
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.69 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 requires 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.

Headnote

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)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 4Under 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.
Acts & Sections
s.69 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. The State of Gujarat & Anr — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
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?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections