Gujarat HC Refuses to Quash FIR Under Section 69 BNS: 'False Promise to Marry' Must be Tested at Trial - 2026-05-08

Digital Romance Turned Legal Conflict: Gujarat HC Weighs in on 'False Promise to Marry' Under New BNS Law

In a significant ruling concerning the interpretation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) , the High Court of Gujarat has dismissed an application seeking the quashing of an FIR involving allegations of sexual intercourse under the pretext of marriage. Justice M. K. Thakker, presiding over the case of Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat , emphasized that the line between a "breach of promise" and a "deceitful act" is a question of fact that must be tested during trial rather than through a quashing petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The case originated from a digital encounter on Facebook in November 2022. The petitioner and the complainant developed a relationship that transitioned from virtual chats to an in-person meeting in February 2024 at Vadodara. According to the FIR, the petitioner facilitated a hotel stay in Vadodara and engaged in sexual relations under the express assurance of marriage by December 2024. The relationship fractured in January 2025 when the petitioner reneged on the promise, citing his mother’s disapproval—a move the complainant alleged was a pre-meditated deceit.

The Tug-of-War: Arguments on Consent and Intent

Counsel for the applicant argued that the relationship was entirely consensual and that there was no "false promise" at the outset. They highlighted the financial support provided by the petitioner and argued that the five-month delay in filing the FIR indicated that the criminal complaint was a result of a personal fallout, not an offense under Section 69 of the BNS.

Conversely, the State argued that the investigation is still in its infancy and that the petitioner has been uncooperative. The prosecution maintained that the court should not stifle an investigation when the allegations clearly suggest that the promise for marriage was used as a tool to gain physical intimacy without any genuine intent to follow through.

Dissecting the Fine Line of Consent

The Court's analysis centered on the critical distinction between a genuine change of heart and an initial intention to deceive. Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana , Justice Thakker noted:

> "There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust."

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that his mother's refusal constituted a bona fide reason for the broken promise. The bench observed that if a person commits to marriage before ever having met the partner, they should be aware of domestic constraints beforehand. Consequently, the claim of parental disapproval was viewed by the court as a potential smokescreen for mala fide motives.

Key Observations

The judgment provides a stern window into how the judiciary interprets the new BNS provisions regarding deceit:

• On Deception: "Merely giving the explanation that the mother is not agreed for the marriage cannot be considered to be a bona fide reason or the circumstances which is beyond the control of the applicant."
• On Judicial Restraint: "The scope of ambit of the powers of the High Court invoking under Section 528 of the BNSS are very wide, but should be exercised with such circumspection and in the rarest of the rare and appropriate cases."
• On Consent: "Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side."

The Verdict and Its Impact

By dismissing the petition, the Gujarat High Court has signaled that allegations under Section 69 of the BNS—specifically those involving sexual intercourse under the pretext of marriage—require a full evidentiary trial to determine the authenticity of the accused's initial intent. For legal practitioners, this decision serves as a reminder that the high threshold for quashing a case is rarely met in scenarios where the "state of mind" of the accused is a core point of contention. The investigation will now proceed, leaving the question of whether the promise was ever genuine to the trial court to decide.