Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which punishes sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or by a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it. Reading the complaint itself, the Court found a consensual relationship and no deceit, observing that the promise, if made at all, was made in good faith and failed because of family opposition.
The complainant alleged that she and the appellant met on a digital platform, that their friendship became a relationship, and that he expressed a wish to marry her when they first met in person. She alleged that physical relations followed on promises of marriage and that he later backed out because his mother did not favour the marriage. An FIR was registered on 20 May 2025 at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara.
The High Court, relying on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, refused to quash the FIR, and the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
Do the allegations in the FIR disclose deceitful means, or a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it, as required by Section 69 BNS?
From Section 90 IPC to Section 69 BNS
The Court noted that under the IPC, such cases were tested as rape under Section 375 read with Section 90, where consent had to be vitiated by a false promise the promisor never intended to keep. Section 69 BNS now treats deceitful conduct separately from rape, and its words “without any intention of fulfilling the same” require a promise made with no intention of fulfilment.
On the FIR’s own account, the Court said, “we do not find anything to find a deceitful conduct”: the relationship was consensual, and the complaint did not say intercourse was due to a promise to marry. Communicating a desire to marry is not deceitful means, and the stated reason for withdrawal, the mother’s objection, indicated that “the promise was made with all good intention, if at all it was made.”
What the Court Actually Held
- The allegations do not disclose deceitful means or a promise made without intention to fulfil it.
- Expressing a desire to marry is not, by itself, deceitful means under Section 69 BNS.
- A relationship ending due to family opposition does not show a promise made in bad faith.
- FIR No. 11196030250292 of 20 May 2025 was quashed and the appeal allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is an early Supreme Court reading of Section 69 BNS.
- It distinguishes a broken promise from a deceitful one.
- It encourages courts to test such FIRs on their own averments at the quashing stage.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Defence Counsel
- Test the FIR for averments that the promise was false from the start.
- Point to reasons for withdrawal that show the promise was made in good faith.
For Complainants and Prosecutors
- Specific facts showing no intention to marry at the outset are essential.
- A bare allegation of a later refusal to marry will not sustain Section 69.
Key Takeaways
- Section 69 needs deceit or a promise made without intention to fulfil.
- Desire to marry is not deceit.
- Family opposition suggests good faith.
- FIR quashed.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. The Court decided on the specific averments in this FIR.
Deceitful means, or a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it.
No, and this article does not identify her.
Conclusion
The ruling draws a line between relationships that fail and promises that were false from the start.
Practical takeaway: Under Section 69 BNS, the prosecution must show deceit at the inception; a promise abandoned because of family opposition is not enough.