Litigation IndiaInsight First, Action Next.

Criminal Law / Quashing of FIR / False Promise of Marriage

0 views

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under BNS Section 69 for Absence of Deceitful Intent

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr.

The big legal question

Does a failed marriage promise due to family objection constitute deceit under BNS Section 69?

What this case means

The appellant was accused under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly entering into physical relations under a false promise of marriage. The Supreme Court found the relationship was consensual and no deceitful intent was established, as the appellant's refusal to marry was attributed to his mother's objection. The Court quashed the FIR, clarifying that a failed promise due to external circumstances is not punishable under Section 69 BNS.

“The Supreme Court quashed the FIR under Section 69 BNS, holding that the relationship was consensual and the failure to marry due to the appellant's mother's objection did not constitute deceitful conduct.”

Share:

Story Slides

Case at a glance1 / 10

Supreme Court of India

Section 69 BNS: Failed Marriage Promise and Criminal Liability

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. | 2026 INSC 987

Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate JurisdictionDate of Decision: 07 September 2026Bench: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod ChandranArea of Law: Criminal Law — Quashing of FIR, Section 69 BNS, False Promise of Marriage

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. · 2026 INSC 98707 September 2026

Key points2 / 10

The Parties and the Essential Facts

Who was involved and what happened

Appellant Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani was accused under Section 69 BNS by the second respondent-complainant.
The complainant alleged the appellant met her through a digital platform, developed a love affair, and communicated desire to marry on their first physical meeting.
Sexual intercourse occurred on 12 February 2024; the complainant stayed with the appellant in a hotel for two days in April 2024.
The appellant later refused to marry, stating his mother was not favourable to the marriage.
FIR No. 11196030250292 was registered on 20 May 2025 at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara, Gujarat.

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. · 2026 INSC 98707 September 2026

Timeline3 / 10

Key Dates in the Case

12 February 2024First instance of sexual intercourse between the appellant and the complainant.
April 2024Complainant stayed with the appellant in a hotel for two days.
20 May 2025FIR No. 11196030250292 registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara, Gujarat.
07 September 2026Supreme Court allows appeal and quashes the FIR.

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. · 2026 INSC 98707 September 2026

The legal question4 / 10

Does a Marriage Promise Broken Due to Family Objection Constitute an Offence Under Section 69 BNS?

Core legal question and arguments

Appellant: The relationship was consensual; there was no deceitful intent from the beginning; the promise to marry was not the basis for the first physical encounter; refusal to marry was due to mother's objection.
Respondent (High Court's view relied upon): The High Court declined to quash the FIR relying on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, suggesting adequate evidence of no initial intention to marry must be assessed.

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. · 2026 INSC 98707 September 2026

Statutory comparison5 / 10

Statutory Provisions: BNS vs IPC on False Promise of Marriage

How the law evolved from IPC to BNS

Legal Subject	New Law (BNS)	Old Law (IPC)
Offence of sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage	Section 69 BNS — separate offence of deceitful conduct or promise to marry without intention to fulfil	Section 375 read with Section 90 IPC — consent vitiated by misconception of fact (promise of marriage)
Key requirement	Promise made with no intention of fulfilling it from the very beginning (deceitful means)	Consent obtained by misconception of fact; accused never intended to fulfil promise from the start
Nature of offence	Carved out as a distinct offence separate from rape	Prosecuted as part of rape provisions under Section 375 IPC

Both BNS Section 69 and the old IPC framework require proof that the accused had no intention to fulfil the promise from the very beginning.

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. · 2026 INSC 98707 September 2026

Precedents relied on6 / 10

Earlier Judgment Relied Upon

Case cited by the High Court and the Supreme Court

Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675

There must be adequate evidence that at the initial stage, the accused had no intention of keeping his promise to marry; a promise made in good faith that later fails due to unavoidable circumstances does not amount to misconception of fact.

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. · 2026 INSC 98707 September 2026

Procedural logic7 / 10

The Court's Reasoning: Step by Step

From the legal question to the final order

1Step 1: Section 69 BNS requires that the promise to marry was made with no intention of fulfilling it from the very beginning — the same rigor as under the old IPC framework.
2Step 2: The FIR itself showed that on the first physical meeting, the complainant succumbed to the appellant's entreaties without the complaint specifically stating it was solely on the basis of the promise to marry.
3Step 3: The appellant communicated only a desire to marry — not a formal or explicit inducing promise — and the relationship thereafter was consensual.
4Step 4: The appellant's refusal to marry was due to his mother's objection, indicating the promise (if made) was in good faith and broken due to external family circumstances.
5Step 5: No deceitful intent from the outset being established, the FIR was quashed and continuation of proceedings not warranted.

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. · 2026 INSC 98707 September 2026

Key points8 / 10

Key Legal Distinction: Good-Faith Promise vs Deceitful Promise

What separates a criminal act from a failed relationship

Deceitful promise (Section 69 BNS): Promise to marry made with no intention of fulfilling it from the very beginning — this is the criminal conduct.
Good-faith promise: Promise made genuinely but later broken due to unavoidable external circumstances such as family objection — this is not an offence.
Consensual relationship: Where the complainant's own statement shows consent was not solely based on the marriage promise, Section 69 BNS cannot be attracted.
Mere communication of desire to marry is not equivalent to a deceitful inducement under Section 69 BNS.

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. · 2026 INSC 98707 September 2026

The verdict9 / 10

The Verdict

Fact, Law, and Result

The Fact: The relationship was consensual, first sexual intercourse was not explicitly conditioned on a marriage promise, and the appellant's refusal to marry was due to his mother's objection.
The Law: Section 69 BNS requires proof that the promise to marry was given with no intention of being fulfilled from the very outset; a promise broken due to family circumstances does not satisfy this requirement.
The Result: The Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 11196030250292 dated 20 May 2025 registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara, Gujarat, and allowed the appeal.

Appeal allowed. FIR No. 11196030250292 dated 20.05.2025 registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat quashed.

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. · 2026 INSC 98707 September 2026

Why it matters10 / 10

Why This Judgment Matters

Practical significance for citizens and courts

Section 69 BNS cannot be invoked merely because a relationship ended without marriage; proof of pre-existing deceitful intent is essential.
A promise to marry that fails due to genuine family opposition or external unavoidable circumstances is not a criminal offence under Section 69 BNS.
Courts must carefully examine whether the complainant's consent to sexual intercourse was specifically and solely induced by the marriage promise, or arose from a consensual relationship.
This ruling protects individuals from misuse of Section 69 BNS while maintaining strong legal protection where genuine deceit is proved from the outset.

A failed promise to marry is not a crime under Section 69 BNS unless deceptive intent existed from the very beginning.

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. · 2026 INSC 98707 September 2026

At a glance (infographic)

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. — infographic summary

Download infographic

In short

The appellant, Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani, was accused under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in connection with an FIR registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara, Gujarat on 20 May 2025. The complainant alleged that the appellant entered into physical relations with her under the pretext of a promise to marry, and later resiled from that promise on the ground that his mother was not favourable to the marriage. The High Court of Gujarat had declined to quash the FIR, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675. The Supreme Court, on appeal, examined the facts of the FIR as extracted by the High Court. The Court noted that the two came into contact through a digital platform, developed a friendship that became a love affair, and the appellant communicated his desire to marry the complainant on their first physical meeting. The first instance of sexual intercourse on 12 February 2024 was described in the complaint itself as arising from the complainant succumbing to the appellant's entreaties, without any specific statement that it was on the basis of a promise to marry. In April 2024, the complainant stayed with the appellant in a hotel for two days. The Court observed that under Section 69 BNS, the offence requires that the promise to marry was made with no intention of fulfilling it from the very beginning. Analogising with the prior IPC framework under Sections 375 and 90, the Court held that where a promise is made in good faith and is later broken due to external unavoidable circumstances such as a parent's objection, it does not amount to deceitful conduct under Section 69 BNS. Finding no deceitful intent established, the Court quashed the FIR.

Background

The complainant alleged that the appellant met her through a digital platform, developed a relationship, communicated his desire to marry her at their first physical meeting, and thereafter had sexual intercourse with her on 12 February 2024 and again during a two-day hotel stay in April 2024. The appellant later refused to marry the complainant, stating that his mother was not favourable to the marriage. An FIR was registered on 20 May 2025 at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara under Section 69 BNS.

The Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed FIR No. 11196030250292 dated 20 May 2025 registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat. The Court held that the relationship was consensual and no deceitful intent on the part of the appellant was established, as the failure to marry was attributable to his mother's objection rather than a pre-existing intent to deceive. All pending applications were also rejected.

Why it matters for you

This judgment clarifies that under Section 69 BNS, mere failure to marry after a consensual relationship does not make a person criminally liable unless there is proof of a deceptive intent existing from the very beginning of the promise. It protects individuals from misuse of the provision in cases where relationships break down due to genuine external circumstances such as family objection. It also aligns the interpretation of Section 69 BNS with the established principle under the IPC as laid down in Deepak Gulati.

Relevant Legal Provisions

Key Acts and sections cited or relied upon in this judgment

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Section 69

Section 69 BNS criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it; the Court applied this provision and found no deceitful conduct on the appellant's part, leading to quashing of the FIR.

Indian Penal Code

Section 375 read with Section 90

Under the IPC, false promise of marriage was prosecuted under Section 375 read with Section 90, requiring that consent was obtained by a misconception of fact; the Court noted this earlier framework to explain how Section 69 BNS carved out a separate but analogous offence.

Full text of the judgment

Verbatim text extracted from the reported judgment in Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs The State of Gujarat & Anr.. For the authoritative version, refer to the Supreme Court of India's official website.

2026 INSC 987 Crl. A. @ SLP Crl. 11526 of 2026 Page 1 of 5

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11526 of 2026]

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani

…. Appellant Versus The State of Gujarat & Anr.

…. Respondents

O R D E R Leave granted. 2. The appellant is an accused under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The appellant is aggrieved with the impugned judgment, which refused quashing of the FIR registered with Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat dated 20.05.2025 bearing No.11196030250292. The second respondent is the complainant, who alleged that under the pretext of the promise to marry, the appellant entered into physical relations with the second respondent and later resiled from his promise on the allegation that his mother was not favourable to such a marriage with the second respondent. 3. The High Court while declining the prayer for quashing specifically referred to the judgment of this Court in Deepak Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Date: 2026.09.10 19:28:11 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

Crl. A. @ SLP Crl. 11526 of 2026 Page 2 of 5

Gulati v. State of Haryana1 of which paragraph 24 is extracted hereunder : “24. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The “failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term “misconception of fact”, the fact must have an immediate relevance”. Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her.”

4. Under the IPC, the false promise of marriage was prosecuted under Section 375 read with Section 90. Therein the requirement was to find that the consent, if at all coming out from the facts, was tainted insofar as the victim having been led to believe a promise of marriage and physical relations having been permitted only on the belief that the promise will be complied with; which the promisor even at the time of giving

1 (2013) 7 SCC 675

Crl. A. @ SLP Crl. 11526 of 2026 Page 3 of 5

such promise had no intention to comply with. It was held in the aforesaid decision that misconception of fact cannot be alleged if the promise is made with good intention and later for unavoidable circumstances, the person is forced to resile from the aforesaid promise. The BNS by incorporating Section 69 brought in a separate offence carving out the fraudulent and deceitful conduct as spoken of therein from the grave offence of rape, while at the same time providing a penalty for the deceptive conduct alleged therein. The word employed “deceitful means or by making a promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same” brings in the same rigor of the promise having been given with an intention of never being fulfilled, which is the deceitful conduct sought to be punished. 5. In the present case, the FIR has been extracted by the High Court and it clearly indicates that the appellant and the complainant came into contact through a digital platform and a friendship developed between them, which later became a love affair. It is also stated in the complaint that the appellant communicated his desire to marry the complainant on the first physical meeting. The complainant is said to have succumbed to

Crl. A. @ SLP Crl. 11526 of 2026 Page 4 of 5

his entreaties and allowed sexual intercourse. This was on 12.02.2024 and again in April 2024, the victim is said to have stayed in a hotel for two days with the appellant. The statements made in the complaint clearly indicate a consensual relationship and we do not find anything to find a deceitful conduct, of, the appellant having induced the complainant into sexual intercourse, which she succumbed to only on the promise to marry. Here we reiterate that on the first occasion when they met, the complainant succumbed to the appellant’s entreaties, is the specific statement made without even stating that it was on the promise to marry that physical relationship was permitted. 6. On the mere communication of the desire of the appellant to marry her, we are unable to find the appellant having used any deceitful means. In any event, the very complaint is that the appellant refused to marry her later, because his mother did not permit it, which indicates that the promise was made with all good intention, if at all it was made. 7. We are unable to find any reason to allow continuation of the proceedings. We hence quash FIR bearing No.11196030250292 dated 20.05.2025, registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat.

Crl. A. @ SLP Crl. 11526 of 2026 Page 5 of 5

8. Civil Appeal stands allowed and pending application(s), if any shall stand rejected.

.……………………………... J. (J. B. PARDIWALA)

..………….…………………. J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 07, 2026.

AI-assisted summary, reviewed and verified by our editorial team.

In the Court's words

“On the mere communication of the desire of the appellant to marry her, we are unable to find the appellant having used any deceitful means.”

“The very complaint is that the appellant refused to marry her later, because his mother did not permit it, which indicates that the promise was made with all good intention, if at all it was made.”

“The statements made in the complaint clearly indicate a consensual relationship and we do not find anything to find a deceitful conduct, of, the appellant having induced the complainant into sexual intercourse.”

“The word employed 'deceitful means or by making a promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same' brings in the same rigor of the promise having been given with an intention of never being fulfilled, which is the deceitful conduct sought to be punished.”

Need help with your case?

Facing a similar legal challenge in the Supreme Court or High Court? Connect with our pro bono volunteer advocates today.

Request Free Callback