‘Kal Hi Shaadi Kar Rahe Hain Hum’: Delhi High Court Says Repeated Assurances on Kundali Matching Prima Facie Show Deceit Under Section 69 BNS

“At Bail Stage, Court Only Sees Prima Facie Material – Not a Mini Trial”, In a significant ruling on the evolving jurisprudence of “rape on false promise of marriage” under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Delhi High Court holding that repeated assurances of marriage despite alleged family insistence on kundali matching prima facie indicated deceit, attracting Section 69 of the BNS.

The matter was decided by Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in Bail Application No. 422 of 2026. The applicant had sought regular bail in an FIR registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court declined relief, observing that the allegations were serious in nature and that the chargesheet was yet to be filed.

The FIR No. 01/2026 was registered at Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi, based on a complaint dated 03.01.2026 by the prosecutrix, aged 27 years. She alleged that she had been in a relationship with the applicant since 2018 and that physical relations were established on repeated assurances of marriage.

According to the complaint, the applicant initially engaged in sexual relations with her in July 2019 and thereafter on several occasions at different locations, including his residence and a hotel in Ashok Vihar. The prosecutrix alleged that she was introduced to the applicant’s family as his prospective wife, attended family functions, and was even given a ring. However, the applicant ultimately refused to marry her, citing non-matching of kundalis.

Significantly, she had earlier lodged a complaint in November 2025 but withdrew it after the applicant and his family allegedly assured her that marriage would be solemnized. When no steps were taken, she filed the present complaint.

During investigation, her statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was recorded before the learned JMFC. The applicant’s mobile phone was seized and sent to FSL for data extraction. WhatsApp chats between the parties formed part of the investigation record.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the allegations disclosed a prima facie case of sexual relations induced by a false promise of marriage, thereby attracting Section 376 IPC and Section 69 BNS, or whether the case was merely a consensual relationship that later turned sour.

The defence argued that the relationship was consensual and long-standing, and that the only impediment to marriage was non-matching of kundalis. It was contended that this amounted at best to breach of promise and did not constitute rape.

However, the Court carefully examined the WhatsApp chats and surrounding circumstances. It noted that the applicant had sought the birth details of the prosecutrix for kundali matching and had repeatedly assured her that there was “no impediment” to marriage.

In a crucial observation, the Court referred to a message dated 14.09.2023 in which the applicant had written, “kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum.” The Court observed that this prima facie demonstrated that the issue of kundali matching had been represented as resolved.

The Court recorded that “the sequence of events, at this stage, cannot be viewed as a mere relationship turning sour,” but rather suggested repeated assurances despite awareness of the family’s insistence on kundali matching.

Addressing the well-settled distinction between breach of promise and false assurance from inception, the Court reiterated that criminal law is not attracted merely because a relationship fails. However, it emphasized that courts must distinguish between a genuine promise that could not be fulfilled and a false assurance made to secure consent.

The Court observed:“If the issue of kundali matching was indeed of such determinative importance for the applicant and his family, the same should have been resolved at the threshold before entering into physical relations.”

It further held that the subsequent refusal to marry on the ground of non-matching of kundalis, despite earlier representations to the contrary, “prima facie raises a question as to the nature and genuineness of the promise extended.”

At the bail stage, the Court clarified, it is not required to conduct a mini trial but only to assess whether a prima facie case exists. In this context, the material on record was found sufficient to attract Section 69 of the BNS, which specifically addresses sexual relations induced by deceit or false assurance of marriage.

Investigation Stage and Bail Principles

The Court also took note of the prosecutrix’s allegation of threats to leak photographs, although it was clarified that only a photograph depicting a kiss was allegedly present in the applicant’s phone.

Importantly, the mobile phone had been seized and sent to FSL, and the chargesheet was yet to be filed. Considering the ongoing investigation and the gravity of the allegations, the Court held that no ground for grant of regular bail was made out.

Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed, with the clarification that the observations were confined to adjudication of the bail plea and would not influence the merits of the trial.

The ruling underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in cases involving allegations of sexual relations induced by deceit under the newly enacted Section 69 BNS. While reaffirming that not every failed relationship attracts criminal liability, the Delhi High Court emphasized that repeated assurances negating impediments like kundali mismatch, followed by refusal on the same ground, may prima facie constitute inducement by deceit.

The decision reiterates that at the stage of bail, the existence of credible prima facie material is sufficient to deny relief, particularly where investigation is ongoing and the allegations are grave.

Date of Decision: 17/02/2026