The Allahabad High Court held that when a married man promises marriage, the deceit begins from the very start. Refusing to quash proceedings under Section 69 BNS, the Court said such allegations must be tested during trial.
The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a married man accused of repeatedly having sexual relations with a woman on the false promise of marriage. The Court held that the allegations make out a prima facie offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means.
The case was heard by Justice Avnish Saxena in Vipin Kumar and 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, decided on February 23, 2026.
The accused had approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated July 22, 2025, the summoning order dated August 26, 2025, and the entire criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur.
According to the FIR lodged on May 22, 2025, the victim came in contact with the first accused, Vipin Kumar, through Facebook in 2018. The complaint alleged that he established a sexual relationship with her on the assurance that he would marry her.
The prosecution claimed that the woman became pregnant multiple times and was allegedly forced to undergo abortions under pressure from the accused. Later, when she again became pregnant and refused to terminate the pregnancy, the accused allegedly refused to marry her and started threatening her.
The woman further stated that she did not know that the accused was already married and had children. She also alleged that intimate videos and photographs were recorded without her knowledge in a hotel room and were later used to blackmail her.
The FIR also named the accused’s wife, sister, and brother-in-law. It was alleged that they threatened the victim and pressured her family to settle the matter through a monetary compromise.
At the time of filing the FIR, the victim was pregnant. She later gave birth to a baby girl on October 1, 2025. The medical certificate mentioned the name of the first accused as the father of the child, and the accused admitted paternity before the Court.
The defence argued that the relationship between the parties was completely consensual and that the woman was aware of the accused’s marital status. It was claimed that no deceit was involved and that the FIR was filed only after the accused refused to provide financial help.
The defence relied on previous judgments including Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025), Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), and Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), to argue that a long-term consensual relationship between adults cannot automatically be treated as sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage.
On the other hand, the State and the complainant opposed the plea. They argued that since the accused was already married, he was fully aware from the beginning that any promise of marriage made to the victim could not be fulfilled. Therefore, the promise was inherently false from the start.
They submitted that consent obtained on such a false promise amounts to consent given under a misconception of fact. They also referred to Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act and relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) to argue that consent obtained through deception cannot be treated as free and voluntary consent.
While examining the matter, the High Court discussed the scope of Section 69 of the BNS. The Court noted that Section 69 is a newly introduced provision which makes sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage, a punishable offence even if the act does not amount to rape.
The Court clarified that there is an important difference between a promise made honestly but later not fulfilled and a promise made without any intention of fulfilling it from the very beginning.
Justice Avnish Saxena observed that since the accused was a married man, he was conscious from the very beginning that any promise of marriage made to the victim could not be fulfilled. In such a situation, the allegation of deceit would attach from the start of the relationship.
However, the Court also stated that questions such as whether the victim knew about the accused’s marital status and whether her consent was voluntary are factual issues that require proper evidence and trial.
The High Court emphasised that at the stage of deciding a quashing petition, it cannot conduct a detailed examination of disputed facts or hold a mini-trial. It observed that the allegations made in the FIR were specific and supported by material on record. Therefore, the case did not fall within the limited category of cases where the Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings.
ALSO READ: ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS (which corresponds to Section 428 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure) and allowed the trial to continue.
This judgment is significant because it clarifies the legal position under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It highlights that if a married person makes a promise of marriage knowing fully well that it cannot be legally fulfilled, such a promise may amount to deceit from the very beginning.
The ruling also reinforces that issues relating to consent and knowledge are matters of evidence that must be decided during trial, not at the preliminary stage of quashing.
Click Here to Read More Reports on False Promise of Marriage
