Married Man’s Promise to Marry is ‘Deceit from Inception’ : Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Rape Case

“Whether the Victim Knew About His Marriage is a Matter of Trial – Proceedings Cannot Be Scuttled at Threshold”, On 23 February 2026, the Allahabad High Court delivered a significant ruling on the scope of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, holding that allegations of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage by a married man disclose a prima facie offence and cannot be quashed at the threshold.

Justice Avnish Saxena, dismissing the application under Section 528 BNSS, upheld the charge-sheet dated 22.07.2025 and summoning order dated 26.08.2025, observing that where allegations indicate “deceit from the very beginning,” the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing.

The Court ruled that the issue whether the victim had prior knowledge of the accused’s marital status “is the matter of trial,” and not a ground for quashing criminal proceedings at inception.

The FIR was lodged on 22.05.2025 alleging that the victim came in contact with accused no.1 through Facebook in 2018. It was alleged that he induced her into a sexual relationship on a promise of marriage. The victim claimed she became pregnant five times, and abortions were allegedly carried out on earlier occasions. At the time of lodging the FIR, she was pregnant for the fifth time and later gave birth to a baby girl on 01.10.2025, with the name of accused no.1 recorded as father in medical documents.

The prosecution alleged that the accused, despite being married with two children, concealed his marital status and assured the victim of marriage. It was further alleged that he recorded intimate videos and photographs without her knowledge and used them for blackmail. The wife, sister, and brother-in-law of the accused were also charge-sheeted for criminal intimidation, voluntary hurt, and intentional insult, alleging pressure for compromise and threats.

The applicants approached the High Court seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, contending that the relationship was consensual and the victim was aware of the accused’s marital status. Reliance was placed on judgments including Uday v. State of Karnataka, Mahesh Damu Khare, and Amol Bhagwan Nehul.

The principal legal issue before the Court was whether the allegations made out a prima facie case under Section 69 BNS, which criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained “by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same.”

The Court referred to its earlier decision in Kuldeep Verma v. State of U.P., clarifying the scope of Section 69 BNS:

“Section 69 of B.N.S. provides that ‘Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her… shall be punished…’.”

The Court emphasized that the provision is a new penal insertion distinguishing such conduct from rape under Section 375 IPC, yet making it independently punishable.

Relying upon Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Court reiterated the settled distinction between:

“‘false promise of marriage, which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken’ and ‘a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled’. It is former which out rightly attracts penal provision.”

Applying this principle, Justice Saxena observed that the accused was admittedly a married man and therefore knew that any promise to marry the victim “could not be fulfilled.” The Court held that such allegation prima facie indicates deceit from inception.

The Court noted:

“Moreover, the accused applicant no. 1 while entering into sexual intercourse with the victim knew that he is a married man and his false promise of marriage to the victim will be broken, therefore, the allegation of deceit is from the very beginning of entering into sexual intercourse.”

On the argument that the victim knew of his marriage, the Court categorically held:

“The prior knowledge of victim that applicant no. 1 was married… is the matter of trial.”

Thus, the voluntariness of consent and alleged misconception of fact would have to be examined during trial.

On Section 528 BNSS and Scope of Quashing

The Court elaborated on the limited scope of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, equivalent to Section 482 CrPC. It reiterated the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, and Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, emphasizing that such power must be exercised “with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases.”

The Court held that at the stage of quashing:

“The High Court only has to see whether prima facie material exists and cannot conduct a mini trial.”

Since the FIR, statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, and medical record disclosed commission of cognizable offences, interference was not warranted.

Distinguishing the Supreme Court Precedents

The High Court distinguished Amol Bhagwan Nehul, observing that the facts therein involved different circumstances including prior marital history of the complainant.

Similarly, in Mahesh Damu Khare, the complainant was aware that the accused had two wives, making the case materially different.

The Court also distinguished Uday v. State of Karnataka, noting that each case depends on its peculiar facts and the present case involved allegations of concealment of marriage and deceit from inception.

Proceedings Against Co-Accused to Continue

The Court found specific allegations of criminal intimidation, pressure for compromise, and threats against the wife, sister, and brother-in-law of the main accused. Holding that such allegations require evidence and appreciation at trial, the Court declined to quash proceedings against them as well.

Dismissing the application, the Court held that the charge-sheet and summoning order disclose a prima facie case under Section 69 BNS and allied offences. The question of consent, knowledge of marital status, and alleged coercion are matters to be tested at trial.

The ruling reinforces that where a married man allegedly induces a woman into a sexual relationship on a promise of marriage that he knows cannot be fulfilled, the Court may treat such promise as “deceitful from inception,” attracting penal consequences under Section 69 BNS.

The trial in Case No. 554 of 2025 (State v. Vipin Kumar and others) will proceed in accordance with law.

Date of Decision: 23 February 2026