Allahabad High Court upheld criminal proceedings against Kuldeep Verma for allegedly maintaining a decade-long sexual relationship on false promise of marriage. The Court held allegations disclose a prima facie offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has upheld criminal proceedings against Kuldeep Verma, who is accused of engaging in a sexual relationship with a woman for over a decade based on a false promise of marriage.
The Court determined that the allegations presented a prima facie case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which criminalizes sexual intercourse achieved through deceitful means.
Verma sought to quash the charge sheet, the cognizance order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Aligarh, and the trial proceedings stemming from an FIR filed in June 2025. The FIR charged him with offenses under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, and 351(3) of the BNS, including sexual intercourse by deceitful means, voluntary injury, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation.
Also Read: ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
According to the prosecution, the complainant and Verma were in a relationship for approximately 11 years and cohabited in his residence. The woman claimed that he repeatedly engaged in sexual relations with her on the promise of marriage while concealing his existing marriage and children. She asserted that the first sexual encounter occurred when she was rendered unconscious by a sedative, with subsequent encounters occurring under the pretense of marriage.
The complainant also allegedviolent physical assault by kicks and fist while entering into sexual intercourse, including a knee injury sustained on May 27, 2025. She accused Verma of threatening to defame her if she disclosed the nature of their relationship. The FIR indicated that although he initially agreed at the police station to be with her, he later backed out and threatened to implicate her and her family in false cases.
During the investigation, the complainant stated that she considered herself to be Verma’s wife and provided evidence of a marriage ceremony conducted at an Arya Samaj Mandir on April 24, 2025. She produced a marriage certificate to support her claim and mentioned that despite her repeated requests for a formal ceremonial marriage, he refused and ultimately abandoned her.
She Further stated that Rs. 15 lakh has been given by her mother to the accused-applicant and has again asked for Rs. 10 lakh and that once accused (applicant) taken the victim to Bateshwar, but while returning he has left her alone on the road.
In his defense, the accused argued that their relationship was entirely consensual and claimed that she had been aware of his marital status for several years. He referenced an internal police inquiry report from 2018, which documented that she had previously withdrawn an earlier complaint, indicating she did not wish to pursue it further. The accused contended that the claims of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage were invalid since the complainant herself asserted they were married.
In contrast, the State and the complainant asserted that the accused had deliberately concealed his marital status and that the promise of marriage was false from the outset. They argued that the complainant was initially unaware of his existing marriage, and that this deception compromised her consent.
The accused relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and another SLP (Criminal) No. 4261/2024 that
“consensus of judicial opinion is in favour of the view that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact.”
On the point of accepting the amount of Rs. 15 lakh the learned counsel for the accused submited that there is no basis for the said allegation.
Section 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 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, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”
The provision contained in Section 69 of B.N.S. is a new induction in penal law, wherein sexual intercourse with a woman, by deceitful means including false promise of marriage is not ‘Rape’, but is made punishable. Prior to the enactment the courts interpret the conduct of parties in view of the provisions
of Section 375 I.P.C. (Rape) coupled with the provision of Section 90 I.P.C (Consent known to be given under fear or misconception).
The explanation provided under Section 69 B.N.S. of ‘Deceitful means’ “shall include the false promise of employment or promotion, inducement, or marrying after suppressing identity.”
After reviewing the record, the bench led by Justice Avnish Saxena concluded that the allegations, when considered at face value, provided sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial. The Court highlighted that Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita specifically criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, including false promises of marriage, even when the act does not classify as rape.
The court took note of the Case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, where Hon’ble the Supreme Court has drawn a clear 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.
The Court Stated,
“In the present case, the applicant accused prima facie knew from the beginning that he could not marry the opposite party no. 2, as he was already married.”
The Court observed that the accused was undeniably married when he initiated the relationship with the complainant, and it indicated that it would be a matter for trial to ascertain whether she was aware of this fact and if her consent was obtained through deception.
The Court stated that, in the context of quashing petitions, it could not conduct an in-depth investigation of disputed facts. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed Verma’s application, allowing the criminal trial to proceed.
Case Title: Kuldeep Verma vs State of UP and Another
Read Attachment:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
