Section 69 BNS carries up to 10 years in jail for a false promise of marriage. But is refusing to marry a crime? Know the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling, bail provisions and FIR quashing rights.
NEW DELHI: Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has created serious legal concerns for men facing allegations of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage.
The law punishes genuine deception. However, an unsuccessful relationship and a deliberately dishonest marriage promise are not the same thing.
On 7 September 2026, the Supreme Court quashed a Section 69 BNS FIR, reinforcing the distinction between an original dishonest intention and a genuine promise that later fails.
WHAT IS SECTION 69 BNS?
Section 69 BNS is a criminal provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, effective from 1 July 2024.
It criminalises sexual intercourse with a woman obtained through deceitful means or a promise of marriage made without any intention of fulfilling it, where the conduct does not amount to rape.
This provision creates a separate offence distinct from rape under Section 63 BNS.
The central legal distinction is simple:
- Genuine promise later broken: Not automatically an offence.
- Marriage promise dishonest from the beginning: May attract Section 69.
- Sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means: May independently attract Section 69.
Criminal liability depends on the statutory ingredients and evidence, not merely on whether marriage eventually takes place.
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 69 BNS
For a successful prosecution under Section 69 BNS, the prosecution must establish the applicable ingredients of the offence.
These include:
- Sexual intercourse: The alleged act must have occurred.
- Deceitful means or dishonest marriage promise: At least one statutory route must be established.
- Dishonest intention: In a false-promise-of-marriage case, the promise must have been made without intending to fulfil it.
- Connection with the sexual act: The alleged deception or dishonest promise must have induced the sexual intercourse.
- Distinct from rape: Section 69 applies where the conduct does not amount to rape.
Importantly, a relationship ending without marriage does not, by itself, establish these ingredients.
A criminal court must examine the evidence concerning the original intention, alleged deception and circumstances of the relationship.
MEANING OF DECEITFUL MEANS UNDER SECTION 69 BNS
The explanation to Section 69 identifies the following examples of deceitful means:
- Inducement through a false promise of employment.
- Inducement through a false promise of promotion.
- Marrying by suppressing identity.
The statutory use of include makes these examples non-exhaustive, but it does not eliminate the requirement to establish the offence.
Deception must be assessed in connection with the alleged sexual intercourse.
Merely concealing an ordinary personal fact, without establishing legally relevant deception and its connection with the sexual act, does not automatically prove Section 69.
FALSE PROMISE OF MARRIAGE VS GENUINE PROMISE LATER BROKEN
This is the most disputed issue in Section 69 BNS cases.
Consider two situations.
SITUATION A: A man promises marriage while never intending to marry and uses that promise to induce sexual intercourse.
SITUATION B: Two adults genuinely plan marriage, but their relationship later fails because of family opposition, incompatibility or changed circumstances.
The first situation may constitute an offence. The second does not automatically become criminal merely because the marriage never happened.
In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Supreme Court distinguished a promise as dishonest when made from one subsequently broken despite being made in good faith.
That decision concerned rape law under the IPC. Its reasoning is relevant to Section 69, and the Supreme Court directly examined the new provision in its 2026 Kunal Kalyani judgment.
Consent between adults does not automatically defeat a Section 69 allegation. Equally, a breakup does not automatically prove deception.
SECTION 69 BNS PUNISHMENT, BAIL AND CLASSIFICATION
Section 69 carries serious criminal consequences.
| Legal provision | Position |
| Maximum punishment | Imprisonment up to 10 years |
| Fine | Also applicable |
| Cognizable offence | Yes |
| Bailable offence | No |
| Trial court | Court of Session |
| Anticipatory bail | Legally available, subject to judicial discretion |
| Compounding | Not compoundable under Section 359 BNSS |
Non-bailable does not mean bail is prohibited. It means bail is not available automatically as a matter of right.
SECTION 69 BNS FIR, ARREST AND BAIL PROCEDURE
A woman can report an alleged Section 69 offence to the police. The FIR process is governed by Section 173 BNSS.
Because Section 69 is cognizable, the police can investigate without a Magistrate’s prior order.
But FIR registration is not a finding of guilt, and arrest is not a mandatory consequence of every FIR.
Arrest powers must be exercised according to Section 35 BNSS. Since Section 69 carries a maximum sentence exceeding seven years, an accused should not assume an automatic entitlement to a notice instead of arrest under the special safeguards for offences punishable up to seven years.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL — SECTION 482 BNSS
A person apprehending arrest may apply before the Sessions Court or High Court. Section 69 is not among the offences excluded from this provision.
REGULAR BAIL — SECTIONS 480 AND 483 BNSS
An arrested accused can seek regular bail from the competent court. The seriousness of the allegations, evidence, custodial requirements and other relevant circumstances matter.
Section 69 BNS bail is legally possible, but never guaranteed.
LEGAL RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO AN ACCUSED MAN
An accused facing a false promise of marriage case has several procedural safeguards and possible remedies.
1. Apply for Anticipatory Bail: Seek protection against arrest where legally justified.
2. Seek Regular Bail: If arrested, apply before the competent criminal court.
3. File an FIR Quashing Petition: Under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court can intervene where proceedings constitute an abuse of process or fail to disclose an offence.
4. Challenge the Prosecution at the Appropriate Stage: Depending on the case record, an accused may seek discharge or contest the allegations at trial.
5. Preserve Exculpatory Evidence: Retain messages, marriage discussions, family communications and other records capable of showing genuine intentions.
6. Exercise Procedural Rights: Obtain legal representation, comply with lawful investigative directions and challenge unlawful actions through appropriate proceedings.
The date of the alleged conduct also matters. Section 69 commenced on 1 July 2024; conduct preceding commencement requires scrutiny under Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits retrospective criminal punishment.
Importantly, Section 69 is non-compoundable. A private settlement does not automatically cancel an FIR or terminate prosecution.
IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS ON SECTION 69 BNS (2026)
- Case: Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat 2026 INSC 987
A man faced a Section 69 FIR after allegedly refusing to marry a woman because his mother opposed their marriage.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, examined whether the complaint disclosed deceitful inducement.
The Court observed that a mere expression of a desire to marry did not establish deceit in the circumstances of that case.
It found no sufficient basis to continue the prosecution and quashed the FIR.
The Court did not find that the complainant had knowingly filed a false complaint.
- Case: AAM v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2026:MPHC-JBP:78138
The case involved two bank managers and allegations arising from an unfulfilled marriage promise.
Justice Himanshu Joshi held that education, financial independence and marriage negotiations did not conclusively resolve the question of deception.
The Court declined to conduct a mini-trial while exercising its quashing jurisdiction.
Outcome: The quashing petition was dismissed, and criminal proceedings were allowed to continue. No final finding of guilt was made.
- Case: Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. (2026)
The allegations included concealment of an existing marriage and sexual intercourse on an alleged false promise of marriage.
The High Court refused to quash the challenged proceedings, finding grounds for the prosecution to continue.
Lesson: Allegations disclosing deception cannot automatically be dismissed simply because the parties had a relationship.
- Case: Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. (2026)
Justice M. Nagaprasanna raised concerns about the rise in Section 69 prosecutions following relationship breakdowns.
In an interim order, the Court stayed further investigation and directed the accused’s release.
The order highlighted the risk of turning failed consensual relationships into criminal proceedings.
Important: This was interim relief, not a final acquittal or a declaration that every such complaint is false.
EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN SECTION 69 BNS CASES
In a Section 69 BNS defence, establishing the relationship’s chronology is crucial.
Relevant evidence may include:
- WhatsApp chats, emails and messages discussing marriage.
- Communications involving both families.
- Records of wedding planning or genuine matrimonial negotiations.
- Evidence explaining subsequent family objections or changed circumstances.
- Travel, location and financial records relevant to the allegations.
- Statements and documents showing when the alleged promise was made and what followed.
Electronic evidence must be preserved carefully.
Sections 61–63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, govern electronic records and their admissibility, including applicable certificate requirements under Section 63.
Preserve original devices, files, timestamps and complete conversations. Avoid manipulated screenshots, deleted messages or selective extracts that could misrepresent context.
Evidence of a consensual relationship is relevant, but it does not conclusively disprove deception. Equally, a subsequent refusal to marry does not conclusively prove a dishonest original intention.
CONCLUSION
Section 69 BNS is meant to punish genuine deception, not every failed relationship or broken marriage promise. The Supreme Court has made it clear that a genuine promise later broken cannot automatically be treated as a criminal offence.
With punishment extending up to 10 years of imprisonment, allegations under Section 69 BNS demand careful investigation, credible evidence and judicial scrutiny. An accused man has legal remedies, including anticipatory bail, regular bail and FIR quashing, wherever justified.
A failed relationship is not proof of deception. A broken promise is not automatically a crime. And an allegation must never be treated as a conviction.
FAQs
- Is Section 69 BNS Bailable or Non-Bailable?
Non-bailable, but anticipatory and regular bail can be granted under the BNSS. - Can Section 69 BNS Lead to 10 Years in Jail?
Yes. Conviction can result in imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine. - Can a Man Be Arrested for Refusing to Marry?
Not merely for refusing marriage. A dishonest promise from the beginning must be established in false-promise cases. - Can a False Section 69 BNS FIR Be Quashed?
The High Court can quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS when legally justified. - Does Consensual Sex Protect a Man From Section 69 BNS?
Not automatically. Sexual intercourse obtained through legally established deceit may still attract Section 69 BNS.
Contact Us
Send a general enquiry to the 69BNS team. Please avoid sharing confidential case details.