Supreme Court: Section 69 BNS Promise to Marry Intent Clarified, FIR Quashed

• The Supreme Court ruled that a later refusal to marry due to unavoidable circumstances, such as family opposition, does not automatically constitute deceit under Section 69 BNS.
• For an offense under Section 69 BNS, the promise to marry must have been made with no intention of fulfillment from the very beginning.
• The Court quashed an FIR against Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyan, clarifying that a subsequent failure to marry does not, by itself, prove initial fraudulent intent.
• This decision aligns with the 2013 Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana judgment, which required evidence of no initial intent to marry.
• Section 69 BNS specifically addresses fraudulent conduct involving a promise to marry, distinct from previous IPC provisions.

For an offense under Section 69 BNS, the promise to marry must have been made with no intention of fulfillment from the very beginning.

The Supreme Court of India recently clarified the stringent conditions under which a breach of promise to marry can constitute a criminal offense under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). In a significant ruling, a bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran moved to quash an FIR that had been lodged against an individual named Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyan. This decision underscores that a subsequent failure to fulfill a marriage promise, particularly when influenced by external factors like family opposition, does not automatically imply deceitful intent from the outset.

The case originated from a complaint filed at the Sayajigunj Police Station in Vadodara City on May 20, 2025, where the complainant alleged that Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyan had engaged in physical relations with her under the guise of marriage. Their relationship, which began on a digital platform and evolved into a love affair, reportedly ended when Kalyan withdrew his promise, citing his mother's disapproval of the union. The Gujarat High Court had previously declined to quash the FIR, referencing the Supreme Court's 2013 judgment in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana.

The Supreme Court's pronouncement centered on the interpretation of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69, which specifically criminalizes sexual relations obtained through “deceitful means” or by making a promise to marry “without any intention of fulfilling the same.” This provision marks a distinct legislative approach compared to the previous Indian Penal Code (IPC) framework, where similar allegations were typically examined under a combined reading of Section 375 (Rape) and Section 90 (Consent given under a misconception of fact). Under the IPC, the critical inquiry revolved around whether the woman's consent was compromised because she believed the marriage promise would be honored, even if the man had no such intention when making it.

The current ruling reinforces principles established in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, a 2013 Supreme Court judgment. That precedent stipulated that for a promise to marry to be considered criminally deceitful, there must be substantial evidence demonstrating that the accused harbored no intention whatsoever of keeping the promise to marry at the very initial stage. The Deepak Gulati ruling also acknowledged that individuals might genuinely intend to marry but later find themselves unable to do so due to unavoidable circumstances.

The Supreme Court meticulously clarified the threshold for establishing criminal intent under Section 69 BNS. It emphasized that for the provision to be applicable, the promise to marry must have been made with a clear and deliberate intention, from the very inception of the relationship, that it would never be honored. A mere subsequent failure to marry, even if it causes distress, does not, by itself, constitute the deceitful conduct required for a criminal offense. This distinction is crucial, as the Court noted that a person might genuinely promise marriage but later be compelled to retract due to unforeseen circumstances or significant family pressure.

Such situations, where external factors prevent the fulfillment of a promise, cannot be automatically equated with an initial fraudulent intention to deceive. The Court further elaborated on the concept of "misconception of fact" as it relates to Section 90 of the IPC, stating that a failure to keep a promise concerning a future, uncertain date does not invariably amount to such a misconception of fact IPC 90. For a misconception of fact to arise, the underlying fact must possess immediate relevance to the consent given. Consequently, Section 90 IPC cannot be used to automatically assign criminal liability unless the court is convinced that the individual never intended to marry the woman from the very beginning.

This Supreme Court ruling significantly elevates the evidentiary standard for prosecuting cases under Section 69 BNS, particularly those involving a promise to marry deceitful means. It establishes a high threshold for proving criminal intent, making it clear that only promises made with absolutely no initial intention of fulfillment will qualify as an offense. The decision mandates that legal practitioners and courts must now focus on gathering concrete evidence of fraudulent intent at the very outset of the relationship, rather than merely relying on the subsequent failure to marry.

The ruling differentiates between a genuine promise that becomes unfulfillable due to external pressures or changed circumstances and a promise made with inherent deceit. This distinction is vital for preventing the criminalization of relationship breakdowns that lack malicious intent. By quashing the FIR against Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyan, the Court has reinforced that a later refusal to marry, especially when stemming from family opposition, does not automatically render a consensual relationship deceitful under the provisions of Section 69 BNS, thereby protecting individuals from criminal charges in cases where initial fraudulent intent cannot be conclusively proven, leading to a Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyan FIR quash.

This Supreme Court ruling clarifies the high threshold for proving criminal intent under Section 69 BNS for breach of promise to marry, emphasizing that only promises made with *no initial intention* of fulfillment constitute an offense. Lawyers must now focus on gathering evidence of fraudulent intent at the outset, rather than just the subsequent failure to marry, when advising clients on potential criminal liability or defense strategies in such cases.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet