Supreme Court Holds That a Genuine Marriage Promise, Later Broken Due to Family Opposition, Does Not Automatically Amount to Deceit Under Section 69 BNS.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has quashed a Section 69 BNS FIR against a man accused of establishing physical relations with a woman on a false promise of marriage, holding that a genuine marriage promise subsequently broken cannot automatically constitute criminal deception.
In Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat & Anr., decided on 7 September 2026, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran clarified that a subsequent refusal to marry does not, by itself, establish that the original promise was dishonest.
The judgment provides important legal guidance for men facing Section 69 BNS allegations after failed relationships.
Case Details
| Particulars | Details |
| Case Name | Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat & Anr. |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Citation | 2026 INSC 987 |
| Judgment Date | 7 September 2026 |
| Bench | Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 11526 of 2026 |
| Legal Provision | Section 69 BNS |
| FIR Date | 20 May 2025 |
| Final Decision | FIR Quashed; Appeal Allowed |
Background: Woman Files Section 69 BNS FIR After Man Refuses Marriage
The man and woman connected through Facebook in November 2022. Their friendship gradually developed into a romantic relationship.
According to the complaint, the man expressed his intention to marry her, and they established physical relations during meetings in February and April 2024.
The woman alleged that he promised to marry her by December 2024. However, in January 2025, he informed her that his mother opposed their marriage and refused to proceed.
Following his refusal, the woman lodged an FIR under Section 69 BNS on 20 May 2025, alleging that physical relations had been established on a false promise of marriage.
The accused approached the Gujarat High Court seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 528 BNSS, but his application was dismissed on 8 May 2026.
He subsequently challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
Why Did the Gujarat High Court Refuse to Quash the FIR?
The Gujarat High Court considered the allegations and the accused’s contention that their relationship was consensual and genuine.
However, the High Court was not persuaded that opposition from the accused’s mother sufficiently explained his refusal to marry. The State also submitted that the accused had not cooperated with the investigation.
The High Court declined to quash the FIR, following which the accused approached the Supreme Court for relief.
Supreme Court: False Promise and Broken Promise Are Legally Different
The Supreme Court examined whether the complaint disclosed the essential ingredients of Section 69 BNS, particularly whether the accused had made a promise of marriage without any intention of fulfilling it.
Referring to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675, the Court explained that a distinction must be drawn between a promise made dishonestly from the beginning and a genuine promise subsequently broken due to changing circumstances.
The Supreme Court found that the complaint disclosed a consensual romantic relationship and did not reveal the deceitful inducement necessary to sustain proceedings under Section 69 BNS.
It further observed that merely expressing a desire to marry does not automatically constitute deception.
The complaint itself stated that the accused later refused marriage because his mother did not approve of the relationship. The Supreme Court considered this circumstance consistent with a genuine intention to marry when the promise was allegedly made.
Why Did the Supreme Court Quash the Section 69 BNS FIR?
The Supreme Court found that the allegations did not disclose the necessary deceitful conduct required to sustain criminal proceedings under Section 69 BNS.
In paragraph 6, the Court observed:
“On the mere communication of the desire of the appellant to marry her, we are unable to find the appellant having used any deceitful means.”
The Court also considered the subsequent refusal to marry because of family opposition and found no sufficient basis to continue the criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 11196030250292 dated 20 May 2025, registered at Sayajiganj Police Station, Vadodara, Gujarat.
The criminal appeal was allowed, bringing the challenged proceedings to an end.
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not separately hold that the complainant had knowingly filed a false case.
How Does This Judgment Help Men Facing Section 69 BNS Cases?
The judgment reinforces an important legal principle: a failed relationship or subsequent refusal to marry does not automatically establish criminal liability under Section 69 BNS.
For men accused following a breakup, the decision highlights the importance of examining the intention behind the alleged marriage promise, the circumstances of the relationship and whether the complaint actually discloses deceitful inducement.
Under Section 69 BNS, sexual intercourse obtained through specified deceitful means or a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it is punishable with imprisonment extending to ten years and a fine.
However, the prosecution must establish the applicable ingredients of the offence. A consensual relationship alone does not automatically exclude Section 69, just as a broken marriage promise alone does not establish it.
Where an FIR fails to disclose the essential ingredients of Section 69 BNS, an accused man may seek quashing before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, subject to the facts and applicable law.
The alleged physical encounters in this case occurred before Section 69 BNS came into force on 1 July 2024. However, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR on the ground that the complaint did not disclose the necessary deceitful conduct, without separately deciding the question of retrospective application.
This judgment does not provide automatic protection against every Section 69 BNS complaint. Its application depends on the allegations, evidence and legal circumstances of each case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat is an important judgment concerning Section 69 BNS, false promises of marriage and FIR quashing.
It clarifies that a genuine promise to marry, subsequently broken due to changing circumstances, cannot automatically be treated as criminal deception.
A failed marriage promise is not, by itself, proof of a crime. Criminal liability must be based on the essential ingredients of Section 69 BNS, not merely on the breakdown of a relationship.