Deceptive Promise of Marriage by a Married Man Invokes Section 69 BNS

The criminal law in India has long grappled with cases where sexual relationships are initiated or continued on the strength of a promise of marriage that ultimately remains unfulfilled. Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), such cases were largely examined through the prism of rape under Section 375, read with Section 90 IPC, which treats consent given under a misconception of fact as no consent in the eyes of law. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, this position now finds statutory reflection in Section 63, which defines the offence of rape, read with Section 28, which governs consent vitiated by fear or misconception of fact.

This approach, however, produced inconsistent outcomes, particularly in long-term relationships where consent appeared facially voluntary but was allegedly undermined by deception.

With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Parliament introduced a significant doctrinal shift. Section 69 BNS now separately criminalises sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage, even when such conduct does not amount to rape. This provision recognises a distinct category of sexual exploitation rooted in deception rather than physical force.

The Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Kuldeep Verma v. State of U.P. & Anr. (decided on 13 January 2026) is among the earliest and most authoritative judicial expositions of Section 69 BNS. The Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a married man who allegedly induced a woman into a prolonged sexual relationship by falsely promising marriage, holding that such conduct squarely attracts Section 69 BNS.

Facts

The prosecution's case, as summarised by the High Court, disclosed the following allegations:

• The complainant and the accused were in a relationship for nearly eleven years.
• The accused repeatedly had sexual intercourse with the complainant on the assurance that he would marry her.
• The complainant later discovered that the accused was already married and had children, a fact allegedly suppressed throughout the relationship.
• The accused allegedly subjected the complainant to physical violence, threats, and financial exploitation.
• A charge-sheet was filed under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, and 351(3) BNS, among others.
• The accused sought quashing of proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, contending that the relationship was consensual and long-standing.

The High Court was thus required to decide whether, prima facie, the allegations disclosed an offence under Section 69 BNS.

Issue

• Whether a married man, who knows from the outset that he cannot lawfully marry the woman, can be said to have employed “deceitful means” by promising marriage and thereby invoking Section 69 BNS?

Judicial Reasoning of the Allahabad High Court

A. Knowledge of Existing Marriage as Deceit

The High Court placed decisive emphasis on the accused’s existing marital status. It is observed that a man who is already married prima facie knows that he cannot enter into a lawful marriage with another woman. Therefore, any promise of marriage made in such circumstances is inherently deceptive.

The Court held that, at least at the stage of cognizance and trial, it could not be assumed that the promise was made in good faith.

B. Distinction Between Consent and Deception

Rejecting the argument of “consensual relationship,” the Court clarified that:

• Consent obtained by suppressing a material fact, such as an existing marriage, cannot automatically be treated as free and informed consent.
• The duration of the relationship does not erase the initial deceit if the promise was false from inception.
• This reasoning aligns with the object of Section 69 BNS, which focuses on means employed, not merely on the presence of apparent consent.

C. Relationship with Rape Provisions

The Court expressly noted that:

• The charge sheet did not invoke rape under Section 63 BNS.
• Section 69 BNS fills a legislative gap by punishing sexual exploitation through deceit even when the stringent requirements of rape are not met.
• This reinforces the independent and supplementary nature of Section 69 BNS within the penal framework.

Relevance of Earlier Supreme Court Jurisprudence

The accused relied on precedents such as Uday v. State of Karnataka and Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, which emphasised that consensual relationships between adults do not automatically translate into criminal liability.

The High Court distinguished these cases on facts, noting that:

• Those decisions arose under the IPC framework.
• They did not involve a situation where the accused was already married and had suppressed that fact.

By doing so, the Court demonstrated how Section 69 BNS alters the analytical framework without discarding earlier jurisprudence altogether.

Section 69 BNS and Long-Term Relationships

One of the most contentious aspects of false promise cases is the presence of long-term relationships. The accused argued that an eleven-year relationship could not be characterised as deception.

The High Court rejected this simplistic reasoning, holding that:

• Length of the relationship is a matter of evidence, not a ground for quashing.
• A prolonged relationship may, in fact, deepen the harm caused by deception rather than negate it.

This approach prevents the misuse of “consensual relationship” as a blanket defence at the threshold stage.

Procedural Aspect: Refusal to Quash under Section 528 BNSS

The Court reiterated settled principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings:

• At the pre-trial stage, courts must examine whether allegations disclose a prima facie offence.
• Detailed evaluation of evidence or assessment of credibility is impermissible.

Applying this standard, the Court held that the allegations clearly warranted a full trial and dismissed the quashing application.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s decision in Kuldeep Verma v. State of U.P. marks a defining moment in the interpretation of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It affirms that a deceptive promise of marriage by a married man is not a mere moral lapse but a cognisable criminal offence, even when the relationship appears consensual on the surface.

By refusing to quash the proceedings, the Court underscored that deception strikes at the heart of consent and dignity. The judgment thus advances a more honest, principled, and victim-centric understanding of sexual autonomy under India’s new criminal law regime.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams