Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means Attracts Prima Facie Offence Under Section 69 BNS: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Proceedings in False Promise of Marriage Case

"Jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS does not extend to evaluating disputed facts or assessing evidence at pre-trial stage" – Allahabad High Court, in a crucial decision under the newly introduced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, dismissed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against a man accused of engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman for over a decade on a false promise of marriage. The case, Kuldeep Verma v. State of U.P. and Another, marks an important interpretative ruling on the scope of the new Section 69 BNS, which criminalises sexual intercourse by deceitful means.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Avnish Saxena held: “Where allegations in the FIR and material collected disclose prima facie commission of an offence, the criminal trial must proceed. This Court cannot enter into disputed facts, assess evidence, or adjudicate contradictory defences under Section 528 BNSS.”

The Court observed that the facts, including the accused being already married, the victim’s claim of being unaware, and the alleged use of deceitful promises to sustain a long-standing sexual relationship, clearly warrant trial and cannot be short-circuited through quashing at the threshold.

"False Promise of Marriage by a Married Man Falls Within Deceitful Means Under Section 69 BNS"

At the heart of the case was the scope and applicability of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which penalizes sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means, including false promises of marriage, without categorising such acts as rape.

Section 69 BNS states:

“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 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Justice Saxena noted: “The provision is a significant new induction in penal law. It creates a distinct offence for deceit-based sexual intercourse, where the intent not to marry exists ab initio. If the promise is false from inception, the offence is made out. The distinction between a mere breach of promise and a false promise is well-settled.”

In the present case, it was admitted by the accused that he was already married, and the complainant alleged that he induced her into a sexual relationship spanning 11 years, promising marriage, while concealing his marital status. The accused argued that the complainant herself claimed they were already married in a temple, which would contradict the allegation of false promise.

The Court rejected this defence, holding that: “Contradictory stands raised by the victim regarding promise of marriage and solemnization of informal marriage raise questions that go to trial. Such contradictions, if any, cannot form the basis for quashing proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.”

"Jurisdiction Cannot Be Conferred by Consent or Contradiction in Victim’s Statements": Role of Teacher and Abuse of Trust Emphasised

The Court also addressed the argument that since the victim allegedly knew the applicant was married (based on a 2018 report), the offence under Section 69 BNS does not arise.

Rejecting this, Justice Saxena observed: “Whether the victim knew about the accused’s marriage is a matter of evidence and cross-examination. It is not a matter that can be adjudicated under Section 528 BNSS.”

Significantly, the accused was also the victim’s teacher when she was pursuing her B.Ed. course. The Court held that this position of trust cannot be overlooked and must be considered under the framework of the BNS and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which creates presumptions against consent where intercourse is by a person in a position of authority.

Quoting Section 64(2)(f) BNS, the Court noted: “Where a teacher, being in a position of trust or authority, commits such acts, the presumption under Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam arises. The Court shall presume absence of consent if the woman testifies that she did not consent.”

Alleged Marriage at Arya Samaj and Financial Exploitation Also Under Scrutiny

The complainant claimed that she and the accused were married in an Arya Samaj Mandir in 2025 and even submitted a marriage certificate to that effect. The accused denied its authenticity, calling it a forged document and stating that both claims—false promise of marriage and marriage—cannot co-exist.

The Court found this argument untenable at the pre-trial stage: “The certificate and the parties’ relationship over 11 years require evidence. The contradictory defences and serious allegations demand a full trial. The proceedings cannot be quashed based on disputed facts.”

Additionally, the victim alleged that her family paid ₹15 lakh to the accused, with further demands made later, and also narrated physical violence, threats, and psychological harassment, particularly citing an incident on 27 May 2025, when she was allegedly beaten and abandoned.

Precedents Under IPC Cannot Be Mechanically Applied to BNS Offence

The accused had relied on pre-BNS decisions, including Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), Pramod Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), and Km. Neha Anuragi v. State of U.P. (2025), to argue that long-standing consensual relationships cannot amount to deceit-based offences.

However, the Court clarified: “These cases were under the IPC regime. Section 69 of BNS is a new and distinct statutory offence. The standards and statutory presumptions under the BNS and BSA, 2023 must govern. Prior interpretations under IPC and Section 375 IPC cannot be mechanically transplanted.”

This distinction significantly limits the scope of pre-BNS jurisprudence in cases arising under the new penal law.

No Ground to Quash Charge-Sheet or Criminal Proceedings – Matter to Proceed to Trial

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the material collected in the charge-sheet, along with the FIR and the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, disclosed the ingredients of the offence under Section 69 BNS, as well as Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS.

Justice Saxena held: “On the basis of prima facie facts, this Court does not find sufficient ground to quash the charge sheet and the proceedings. The application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.”

The criminal trial in Case No. 2823/2025 (State v. Kuldeep) will now proceed before the trial court, with directions that the case be conducted based on the stage already reached.

Date of Decision: 13 January 2026