Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat
Background
The appellant was booked under Section 69 BNS (sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage) after the complainant alleged he had physical relations with her on the promise of marriage and later backed out because his mother did not approve. The Gujarat High Court declined to quash the FIR, relying on the settled test from Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana that a false promise requires proof the accused never intended to marry from the very beginning. The appellant challenged this refusal before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined the FIR's own averments and found the relationship began organically through a dating platform, that the appellant expressed a desire to marry at their first meeting, and that the complainant's statement did not even claim the first instance of intercourse was conditioned on a marriage promise. The Court held that BNS Section 69 (like the earlier IPC framework) punishes only "deceitful" conduct, a promise made without any real intention to fulfil it from the outset, and does not criminalise a genuine promise that later could not be kept, here because the appellant's mother objected to the match. Finding no deceitful inducement on the facts alleged, the Court held continuation of criminal proceedings was unwarranted and quashed the FIR.
Lesson Learnt
A consensual relationship that later ends because a marriage could not materialise is not automatically a criminal offence. A false-promise-of-marriage charge requires evidence that the accused never intended to marry from the very beginning, not merely that the relationship or the wedding plan later fell through.