This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Introduction
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through a false promise of marriage, employment, or promotion — a provision with no direct equivalent in the erstwhile IPC, where such cases were prosecuted under Section 376 read with Section 420. In early 2026, the Allahabad High Court delivered multiple rulings on Section 69 BNS, drawing the critical line between “deceit” and “disappointment.”
Section 69 BNS — The Statutory Provision
Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 provides:
Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry which he does not intend to fulfil, or by other false promise, has sexual intercourse with a woman, which is 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.
Key elements:
- Sexual intercourse with a woman
- Obtained by deceitful means, or by a promise to marry which the accused did not intend to fulfil, or by other false promise
- The intercourse does not amount to rape (i.e., it is not by force, but consent was obtained through deception)
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.
Allahabad HC Rulings — The Emerging Framework
A Married Man’s Promise — “Deceit From Inception”
In one ruling, the Allahabad High Court refused to quash an FIR under Section 69 BNS where the accused was a married man who had promised to marry the complainant. The Court held that when a person who is already married makes a promise of marriage, the promise is false from its very inception — the accused knew, or ought to have known, that he could not legally fulfil the promise (at least under personal laws that prohibit bigamy). Such a case squarely falls within Section 69 BNS and cannot be quashed at the threshold.
Genuine Relationship That Failed — “Punishing Disappointment, Not Deceit”
In a contrasting ruling, the Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 69 BNS where the evidence indicated that:
- The relationship between the parties was consensual and of a significant duration.
- The intent to marry appeared genuine at the inception of the relationship.
- The relationship subsequently broke down due to changed circumstances (family opposition, incompatibility, or other factors).
The Court observed that prosecuting a person under Section 69 BNS in such circumstances would amount to “punishing disappointment, not deceit.” The provision targets deliberate deception — not every broken promise of marriage. If the intent to marry was genuine at the time the promise was made but the marriage did not materialise due to subsequent events, the essential element of “deceitful means” or a promise the accused “did not intend to fulfil” is not established.
The Distinction Between Deceit and Breach of Promise
The emerging jurisprudence at the Allahabad High Court draws a clear distinction:
| Factor | Section 69 BNS Attracted | Section 69 BNS Not Attracted |
|---|---|---|
| Intent at inception | Promise was false from the start; accused never intended to marry | Promise was genuine; intent to marry existed at the time |
| Marital status | Accused was already married (bigamy bar) | Accused was unmarried and free to marry |
| Relationship duration | Short-lived, transactional | Long-term, mutual, consensual |
| Reason for failure | Accused abandoned the complainant after obtaining sexual favours | Relationship broke down due to changed circumstances |
| Nature of conduct | Calculated deception | Genuine disappointment |
This distinction mirrors the Supreme Court’s earlier jurisprudence under Section 376 IPC, particularly in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, where the Court held that the “false promise” must be shown to have existed from the inception — a subsequent change of mind does not retroactively convert consensual intercourse into rape.
Assessing Quashing Petitions Under Section 69 BNS
- Threshold inquiry: Was the promise of marriage false from inception, or did it become unfulfillable due to subsequent events?
- Evidentiary markers: The accused’s marital status, duration of the relationship, communications showing intent (or lack thereof), and the circumstances of the breakup are all relevant.
- Misuse safeguard: The “disappointment vs. deceit” formulation guards against misuse of Section 69 BNS where a consensual relationship simply did not culminate in marriage.
Key Statutory Provisions
- Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sexual intercourse by deceitful means or false promise of marriage (up to 10 years imprisonment and fine).
- Section 64, BNS, 2023 — Rape (replacing Section 376 IPC); minimum 10 years, extendable to life imprisonment.
- Section 63, BNS, 2023 — Definition of rape, including consent obtained by misconception of fact (replacing Section 375 IPC).
Useful Resources
- SCC Online — False Promise of Marriage and Section 69 BNS
- LiveLaw — Allahabad HC on Section 69 BNS
- Indian Kanoon — Search Indian case law and statutes
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.