Section 69 BNS Cannot Criminalise a Failed Promise to Marry: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Arising from a Consensual Relationship

Case Name : Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat & Another

Date of Judgment: 7 September 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 987

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Held: The Supreme Court held that a consensual sexual relationship does not attract Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 merely because the accused subsequently refuses or is unable to marry the complainant. To constitute the offence, the promise to marry must have been made without any intention of fulfilling it from the very beginning. A genuine promise that later remains unfulfilled because of subsequent circumstances cannot, by itself, amount to deceitful conduct. The Court found no allegation in the FIR showing that the appellant had induced the complainant to enter into a physical relationship solely on the strength of a knowingly false promise of marriage.

Summary: The appellant was accused of committing an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on the allegation that he established physical relations with the complainant after promising to marry her and subsequently refused to perform the marriage. The Gujarat High Court declined to quash the FIR, relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013).

The Supreme Court explained that, under the earlier IPC regime, allegations concerning sexual relations on a false promise of marriage were examined under Section 375 read with Section 90 IPC. The essential requirement was that the accused must have had no intention of honouring the promise at the time when it was made. A promise made honestly, which later cannot be fulfilled because of unavoidable or subsequent circumstances, does not render the woman’s consent vitiated by a misconception of fact.

The Court observed that Section 69 BNS has created a separate offence to punish sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or by making a promise to marry without intending to fulfil it. Nevertheless, the statutory words “without any intention of fulfilling the same” retain the essential requirement of dishonest intention from the inception. Therefore, a mere breach of promise or a subsequent refusal to marry is insufficient to attract criminal liability.

On examining the FIR, the Court found that the appellant and the complainant had met through a digital platform, developed a friendship and thereafter entered into a romantic relationship. The allegations disclosed a consensual relationship. The complainant had not specifically alleged that she permitted the physical relationship only because of the appellant’s promise to marry her. Moreover, her allegation that the appellant later refused to marry because his mother did not approve of the marriage indicated that the promise, if made, was not necessarily dishonest at its inception.

The Supreme Court consequently concluded that the essential ingredients of Section 69 BNS were absent and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be unjustified.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed FIR dated 20 May 2025, registered at Sayajigunj Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat.