Section 69 of the BNS: False Promise of Marriage Under BNS

When this subject first gained traction, the law was fairly new and largely untested—courts were still hearing these matters. In the months since, over 130 judgments across 17 High Courts (SCC Online) have clarified how Section 69 operates in real courtrooms. Having represented clients in anticipatory bail, quashing, and trial proceedings before various criminal courts, I have tracked this provision’s judicial evolution in real time.

What Section 69 Actually Says

Section 69 penalises sexual intercourse “not amounting to rape” when consent was obtained by deceitful means—including a false promise of marriage made without genuine intent to fulfil it. Every judgment now turns on a single question:

Was there dishonest intent at the very beginning of the relationship?

If not—if the relationship was genuine and later failed—Section 69 does not apply. This “intent at inception” test now anchors nearly every judicial decision under the provision.

The Numbers: What 132 Cases Reveal (2024–2025)

Across 132 reported judgments (till 24 October 2025), a consistent national pattern emerges:

Top jurisdictions—Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, and Kerala—account for over 80% of all rulings. Only five petitions nationwide were denied. It bears noting that several challenges, though filed in such cases, remain pending adjudication.

Common Judicial Themes

1. Consensual Relationship ≠ Deceit

Courts repeatedly observed that a consensual adult relationship—even one that ends badly—does not by itself establish deception.

A mutual relationship that ends in disappointment cannot be criminalised unless deceit is shown at the inception.
— Kerala High Court, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3069

2. Delay in FIR Indicates Retaliation

More than half the complaints were filed months after the relationship ended, often following the accused’s marriage. Courts viewed such delays as retaliatory and granted anticipatory bail.

3. Intent at Inception Is Key

Courts refuse to infer deceit unless it is shown that the accused never intended to marry from the start.

4. Adult Autonomy

Judges repeatedly affirm that adult women possess autonomy in intimate relationships. Criminal law protects against coercion, not emotional fallout.

When Courts Denied Relief

Out of 132 rulings analysed, only five petitions were denied—all involving aggravating facts such as concealment, active deceit, or statutory limitations.

These represent under 4% of all rulings. Courts are clearly confining Section 69 to cases of proven dishonesty—not emotional or social breakdowns.

What the Courts Expect

Across High Courts, one message is consistent: Section 69 BNS punishes deceit, not disappointment.

Courts now assess whether the promise to marry was false from inception; whether FIR timing suggests retaliation; whether objective evidence (chats, messages, photographs) supports the claim; whether both parties were adults capable of consent; and whether custodial interrogation is truly necessary—in cases like these, it rarely is.

Every romantic failure cannot be painted as deceit.
— Bombay High Court in Ankit Hukumchand Malviya v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 734

Criminal law cannot become a tool for retribution between consenting adults.
— Deepak v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2689

The prosecution must establish that the promise was false from inception; otherwise, the offence is not made out.
— Yashwant Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 3712

Together, these judgments preserve the boundary between deceit and disappointment, ensuring criminal law remains a shield against fraud—not a weapon in personal disputes.

What Accused Persons Should Know

Allegations under Section 69 BNS are serious, but not automatically criminal. Courts have drawn a clear, consistent line.

1. Intent matters most. Liability arises only if the promise was false from the start.
2. Seek anticipatory bail early. Courts routinely grant bail where consent was voluntary.
3. Preserve your evidence. Chats, messages, and photographs often decide outcomes.
4. Avoid direct contact after FIR. Communicate only through your advocate.
5. Obtain early legal advice. Timely representation protects liberty and prepares the ground for quashing if needed.
6. Stay calm and factual. Composure and credibility matter more than confrontation.

The strongest defence under Section 69 BNS lies in truth, evidence, and restraint.