Introduction
A relationship that does not end in marriage does not automatically become a criminal case. However, where sexual intercourse is allegedly obtained through a promise to marry that was deceptive from the beginning, Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 can become relevant. The distinction between a false promise to marry and a genuine promise that is later not fulfilled is therefore central to determining criminal liability. Recent judicial decisions have continued to emphasise that the law addresses deception rather than the ordinary failure of a relationship.
What Does Section 69 BNS Provide?
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita creates a specific offence involving sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or through a promise to marry a woman made without any intention of fulfilling it, where the conduct does not amount to rape. The provision carries punishment of imprisonment extending up to ten years and fine. The Explanation to the provision also recognises certain conduct as deceitful means, including inducement through a false promise of employment or promotion and marrying by suppressing identity.
The wording of the provision makes the accused person’s intention at the time of making the promise particularly important. A promise that was genuinely made with an intention to marry but was later not fulfilled does not automatically satisfy the statutory requirement of a promise made without intention to fulfil it. The law therefore distinguishes between deception at the beginning of the relationship and a relationship that subsequently breaks down.
When Can A False Promise To Marry Become An Offence?
The central question is whether the promise was false from its inception. The Supreme Court’s earlier jurisprudence under the Indian Penal Code had already developed this distinction in cases involving allegations of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage. Courts have examined whether the accused had no intention of honouring the promise when it was made and whether the promise had a direct connection with the woman’s decision to engage in sexual intercourse.
A later refusal to marry, by itself, does not establish that the original promise was fraudulent. Circumstances such as family opposition, changed circumstances, incompatibility or other developments can result in a genuine relationship ending without establishing that the promise was dishonest at the beginning. At the same time, evidence that the accused knowingly made a promise that could not or was never intended to be fulfilled can lead to a different legal conclusion.
What Has The Supreme Court Recently Held?
The distinction was recently considered by the Supreme Court in Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat. The case concerned an FIR registered under Section 69 BNS after a woman alleged that the accused had established a physical relationship with her on the promise of marriage and later withdrew from that promise after opposition from his mother.
The Supreme Court found that the relationship was consensual and that the material did not establish deceit merely because the marriage did not ultimately take place. The Court consequently quashed the FIR.
The decision reinforces an important principle: Section 69 BNS does not criminalise disappointment in a relationship. It addresses sexual intercourse obtained through legally recognised deceitful circumstances, including a promise to marry made without an intention to fulfil it. A subsequent failure to marry cannot retrospectively establish that the original promise was false.
What Have High Courts Clarified?
High Courts have also reiterated the distinction between a false promise and a subsequently unfulfilled promise. The courts have recognised that the relevant question is whether there was an intention to marry when the promise was initially made. A subsequent failure to fulfil the promise cannot, by itself, retrospectively convert consensual sexual intercourse into an offence under Section 69 BNS.
The judicial approach therefore prevents the outcome of a relationship from becoming the sole basis for determining the accused person’s intention at the beginning. The circumstances surrounding the promise, the conduct of the parties and the available evidence remain relevant to determining whether the promise was genuinely made or was merely a means of obtaining sexual intercourse.
Does Every Failed Relationship Become A Section 69 Case?
No. Section 69 does not make every failed relationship criminal. A consensual relationship that later ends, including one involving an earlier promise of marriage, does not automatically satisfy the ingredients of the offence. Courts examine the circumstances surrounding the promise, the timeline of the relationship and the material available to determine whether the promise was genuinely made or was merely a deceptive device.
At the same time, the provision remains relevant where allegations and evidence indicate that the promise was deliberately false from the outset. Deliberate concealment of an existing marriage or other conduct falling within the statutory concept of deceitful means can materially change the legal position. Section 69 therefore focuses on deception and the intention behind the promise, rather than simply on whether the parties eventually married.
Why Is The Distinction Legally Important?
The distinction protects two competing legal interests. A person who uses a knowingly false promise to obtain sexual intercourse can face criminal liability under the statutory framework. At the same time, a genuine relationship cannot automatically be transformed into a criminal offence merely because the proposed marriage eventually fails.
The recent judicial approach therefore adds clarity to Section 69 BNS by reaffirming that a broken promise and a false promise are not legally identical. The crucial inquiry is not simply whether the marriage happened, but whether the promise was dishonest when it was made and whether the alleged deception was connected to the sexual relationship.
The judgment adds clarity on the distinction between a genuine promise that was later not fulfilled and a promise made as a deceptive means to obtain sexual intercourse.
