Allahabad High Court Rules False Marriage Promise by Married Teacher Prima Facie Attracts Section 69 BNS

Introduction

In a significant ruling that underscores the application of India's new criminal code, the Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a college teacher accused of engaging in a prolonged sexual relationship with his former student under the false promise of marriage. The court's decision, delivered by Justice Avnish Saxena on January 13, 2026, emphasizes that a promise of marriage made by an already married individual constitutes "deceitful means" under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The case involves applicant Kuldeep Verma, a lecturer, facing charges including sexual intercourse by deceitful means, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation. The victim, identified as Pooja Rani, alleges an 11-year exploitative relationship that began when she was a B.Ed. student. This judgment highlights the evolving legal landscape post the replacement of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with the BNS, offering clearer protections against deceptive sexual relationships.

The bench, comprising Justice Avnish Saxena, rejected Verma's application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in Case No. 2823/2025 arising from Case Crime No. 521/2025 at Police Station Quarsi, Aligarh. By upholding the trial's continuation, the court signals a firm stance against what it views as prima facie violations of consent obtained through deception, potentially influencing how similar cases are handled under the revamped criminal framework.

Case Background

The origins of this dispute trace back to 2014-2015, when Pooja Rani, then a student pursuing a B.Ed. course at Khair Kanya Mahavidyalaya in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, first encountered Kuldeep Verma. Verma, a private lecturer at the institution, initially assisted Rani with her studies, fostering a professional teacher-student dynamic. According to Rani's statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, the relationship soon evolved into a personal one, marked by promises of marriage from Verma.

Rani, now 39 years old, alleges that Verma administered a sedative-laced cold drink to her on the first occasion, leading to non-consensual sexual intercourse. Subsequent encounters, spanning over 11 years, were allegedly based on repeated assurances of marriage. During this period, Rani resided in Verma's home, treating him as her husband and even participating in a temple marriage ritual in 2017-2018, where he applied vermilion to her forehead. In 2025, they reportedly solemnized a marriage at an Arya Samaj Mandir, with Rani providing a certificate dated April 24, 2025, as evidence. Rani claims she completed her Ph.D. while living with Verma, but he refused formal ceremonial marriage despite her persistent requests.

Complicating matters, Rani alleges financial exploitation, stating her mother gave Verma Rs. 15 lakh, followed by demands for an additional Rs. 10 lakh. Physical abuse escalated the situation: On May 27, 2025, Verma allegedly beat her, causing a knee injury. Further incidents included abandonment during a trip to Bateshwar and threats to defame her. Rani also mentions suffering from uterine fibroids ("Rasauli"), which Verma refused to treat, exacerbating her mental distress.

The breaking point came in June 2025. On June 17, 2025, the couple entered a compromise at the police station, where Verma agreed to keep Rani with him. However, he reneged post-release, citing her health issues and threatening to implicate her family in false cases. Rani lodged the FIR on June 20, 2025, at 11:56 PM, leading to registration under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, and 351(3) of the BNS. A charge sheet followed on August 8, 2025, and cognizance was taken on August 26, 2025, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.

Prior to this, a 2018 complaint by Rani was withdrawn after she learned of Verma's marital status—he is already married with three children. An inquiry report by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, dated September 25, 2018, noted Rani's voluntary withdrawal, attributing it to her ongoing studies and awareness of Verma's marriage. Verma, in turn, filed an application under Section 173(4) BNSS on June 18, 2025, accusing Rani and her family of harassment and blackmail since 2014.

This timeline reveals a complex interplay of consent, deception, and abuse, raising core legal questions: Does a long-term relationship negate claims of deceit under Section 69 BNS? Can proceedings be quashed if the victim was allegedly aware of the accused's marital status? And how does the new BNS provision differentiate from prior IPC interpretations of consent under misconception?

Arguments Presented

The applicant's counsel, Mrityunjay Dwivedi, argued that the relationship was entirely consensual, as evidenced by its 11-year duration and Rani's cohabitation in Verma's home as his "wife." He contended that allegations of sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage could not stand, given Rani's claim of a prior Arya Samaj marriage in 2018. Dwivedi dismissed the Rs. 15 lakh claim as baseless and highlighted that the only documented injury—a knee issue—did not conclusively link to Verma, as Rani was referred to orthopedics without further attribution.

Verma's side emphasized Rani's 2018 complaint withdrawal, supported by the DSP's report, where she admitted knowing of his marriage and chose not to pursue action to avoid disrupting her education. They portrayed Rani as the aggressor, alleging she and her family blackmailed Verma after he allowed her study assistance at his wife's insistence. On June 18, 2025, Verma filed a counter-application (No. 75/11/2025) detailing harassment since her B.Ed. admission, framing the FIR as retaliatory. Counsel relied on Supreme Court precedent in Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (2025), quoting its reference to Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), which held that consent from a mature individual in love, even on a promise later unfulfilled, is not under misconception unless proven otherwise. A coordinate bench ruling in Km. Neha Anuragi v. State of U.P. (2025) was cited, noting long-term consensual relationships do not warrant prosecution if disputes arise from marriage refusal.

Opposing this, counsel for the victim (opposite party No. 2) and Assistant Government Advocate Akanksha Gaur argued the relationship was rooted in deception from inception. Rani was unaware of Verma's marriage and children until after the FIR, making his promises inherently false. They stressed the initial non-consensual act via sedation and subsequent exploitation, including physical violence and threats. The temple "marriage" and 2025 certificate were presented not as validation of consent but as further deceit to maintain control. Rani's counter-affidavit denied any 2018 compromise, labeling the DSP report false, and annexed evidence like Verma's thesis listing her as his "better half." They argued no true compromise existed, and injuries were directly inflicted by Verma. Financial demands were framed as extortion attempts by Verma, not vice versa. The victim's statements under BNSS sections detailed mental torment, health neglect, and repeated marriage refusals, positioning the case as classic deceit under Section 69 BNS, where the accused's marital status invalidated any genuine intent.

Legal Analysis

Justice Saxena's reasoning centered on a prima facie evaluation of the allegations against established legal principles, particularly under the BNS's novel Section 69, which penalizes sexual intercourse via "deceitful means," explicitly including false marriage promises without intent to fulfill. Unlike the IPC's Section 375 (rape) and Section 90 (consent under misconception), Section 69 carves out non-rape deceptive acts, punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment and fine. The court clarified "deceitful means" encompasses suppressing identity or false inducements, aligning with post-IPC judicial trends.

The judgment drew on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), distinguishing a "false promise" (made without intent, attracting penalty) from a "breach of promise" (good faith later unfulfilled, not criminal). Here, Verma's pre-existing marriage prima facie indicated no intent to marry Rani, rendering the promise deceitful ab initio. The court noted the teacher-student power imbalance, invoking Section 64(2)(f) BNS (aggravated rape by authority figures) and Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (presumption of non-consent in rape prosecutions, extendable to deceit cases).

Precedents like Uday v. State of Karnataka were referenced but distinguished: While mature consent in love isn't automatically vitiated, surrounding circumstances—sedation, long-term coercion, and marital suppression—warranted trial. The 2018 DSP report raised doubts about Rani's prior knowledge, but the court deemed it a matter for evidence, not quashing. Similarly, Km. Neha Anuragi (consensual breakup) was inapplicable due to here the deception's persistence. The alleged 2025 marriage certificate was scrutinized; Verma called it fraudulent, but its recency (post-FIR awareness) didn't negate earlier deceit.

This analysis differentiates quashing under Section 528 BNSS (abuse of process) from trial continuance: Proceedings persist if allegations disclose a cognizable offense, per State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) principles (implicitly). Societal impact was implicit—protecting vulnerable women from exploitative relationships, especially in educational settings, without presuming guilt pre-trial.

Key Observations

The judgment features several pivotal excerpts illuminating the court's rationale:

• On prima facie facts: "The facts alleged in the F.I.R. and the material available on record on the face of it reveals the prima facie facts that the victim is residing in the house of accused-applicant and was in relationship with the accused-applicant since last 11 years. The sexual intercourse for the first time was the result of unconsciousness of victim and subsequently, on false promise of marriage."

• Defining deceit under Section 69: "Section 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides that 'Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.'"

• Distinguishing promises: Citing Pramod Suryabhan Pawar : "Hon'ble the Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between 'false promise of marriage, which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken' and 'a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled'. It is former which out rightly attracts penal provision."

• On the accused's knowledge: "It is an admitted fact that the accused-applicant was already married when he came in contact with opposite party no. 2... the applicant accused prima facie knew from the beginning that he could not marry the opposite party no. 2, as he was already married."

• Rejecting quashing: "On the basis of prima facie facts, this Court does not find sufficient ground to quash the charge sheet and the proceedings."

These observations emphasize evidence-based scrutiny over narrative inconsistencies, reinforcing Section 69's role in addressing "cheating" in intimate relations.

Court's Decision

The Allahabad High Court unequivocally dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS on January 13, 2026, upholding the charge sheet, cognizance order, and ongoing trial in Case No. 2823/2025. Justice Saxena ruled that the allegations, viewed prima facie, established offenses under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, and 351(3) BNS, warranting full adjudication rather than preemptive quashing.

Practically, this means Verma must face trial, where defenses like consent or prior knowledge can be tested against prosecution evidence, including Rani's statements and documents. No interim relief was granted, preserving the case's momentum.

The implications are profound for legal practice. Under the BNS, effective July 1, 2024, Section 69 fills a gap left by IPC ambiguities, explicitly criminalizing deceitful non-rape intercourse. This ruling clarifies that marital status suppression prima facie evidences non-intent, easing prosecutorial burdens in promise-to-marry cases. It may embolden victims in teacher-student or long-term exploitative dynamics to pursue justice, reducing quashing successes based on "consensual" claims.

Broader effects include heightened scrutiny of power imbalances in educational institutions, potentially prompting policy reforms like mandatory disclosures or awareness programs. For future cases, courts may more readily invoke presumptions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, shifting focus from victim-blaming (e.g., "Why stay 11 years?") to accused intent. However, it cautions against overreach—trial remains essential to resolve factual disputes, like the marriage certificate's authenticity.

This decision aligns with India's push toward gender-sensitive laws, post-Nirbhaya, signaling zero tolerance for deceptive consent. Legal professionals handling similar matters should now prioritize BNS-specific arguments, anticipating stricter thresholds for quashing in abuse-of-process applications. As the trial unfolds, it could set precedents refining Section 69's boundaries, ultimately strengthening protections against intimate partner deception.