A failed relationship can lead to a Section 69 BNS FIR carrying up to 10 years in prison. Can the High Court quash it before trial? Know what the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling says about false marriage promises.
NEW DELHI: A man enters into a relationship with a woman. They discuss marriage, develop physical intimacy and remain together for months or years. Later, the relationship fails. The woman alleges that the man never intended to marry her and registers an FIR under Section 69 BNS.
Read Also:- Section 69 BNS: Legal Protection or Weapon Against Men?
The man suddenly faces a non-bailable criminal offence, possible arrest, police investigation and the prospect of a lengthy trial.
But can a failed relationship, by itself, justify criminal prosecution?
The answer is no.
The High Court can quash a Section 69 BNS FIR under Section 528 BNSS when the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence or when continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
In September 2026, the Supreme Court quashed a Section 69 FIR after finding that the complainant’s allegations did not establish the necessary deceitful inducement.
However, not every relationship dispute qualifies for quashing. Courts must distinguish a genuine promise that could not be fulfilled from a deliberately dishonest promise made to obtain sexual intercourse.
WHAT IS SECTION 69 BNS AND WHY CAN IT LEAD TO 10 YEARS IN JAIL?
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which came into force on 1 July 2024, criminalises sexual intercourse with a woman by employing deceitful means or making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling that promise, where the conduct does not amount to rape.
The explanation includes deceitful means such as false inducement concerning employment or promotion and marrying by suppressing identity.
The offence carries imprisonment extending to 10 years and a fine.
Under the BNSS First Schedule, it is:
- Cognizable: Police can investigate and arrest without a warrant when the statutory conditions are satisfied.
- Non-bailable: Bail is not automatic but can be granted by the competent court.
- Triable by a Court of Session: The case is tried before the Sessions Court.
The crucial distinction is between a false promise made from the beginning and a genuine promise that later remains unfulfilled.
A change of mind, family opposition or breakdown of a relationship does not automatically establish criminal intent. The alleged deception and its connection with sexual intercourse must be examined.
CAN THE HIGH COURT QUASH A SECTION 69 BNS FIR UNDER SECTION 528 BNSS?
Yes. Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.
This provision corresponds to the earlier Section 482 CrPC, subject to the procedural law applicable to a particular case.
The High Court can examine whether the FIR, complaint and legally relevant material disclose an offence even when their allegations are accepted at face value.
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down illustrative categories in which criminal proceedings may be quashed.
These include cases where:
- The allegations do not disclose any criminal offence.
- Uncontroverted allegations and supporting material fail to establish a prima facie case.
- The allegations are inherently improbable in the legally recognised sense.
- Proceedings are demonstrably malicious or instituted for an improper purpose.
- Continuing the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of court process.
However, the High Court ordinarily cannot evaluate conflicting witnesses, decide contested facts or conduct a complete trial while hearing a quashing petition.
An accused man does not need to prove his innocence at the quashing stage. But he must establish a legally sufficient ground for the High Court to intervene.
SUPREME COURT 2026: SECTION 69 FIR QUASHED AFTER HIGH COURT REFUSED RELIEF
A significant judgment is Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 INSC 987, decided on 7 September 2026.
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran examined a Section 69 FIR registered on 20 May 2025 at Sayajiganj Police Station, Vadodara.
The complainant alleged that she met the accused through a digital platform, developed a romantic relationship and engaged in physical intimacy after discussions about marriage.
According to her allegations, the man subsequently refused to marry because his mother did not approve of the relationship.
The accused approached the Gujarat High Court seeking FIR quashing. However, the High Court dismissed his petition on 8 May 2026.
He challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
What Did the Supreme Court Observe?
The Supreme Court examined the complaint and found no sufficient allegation that the accused had induced the complainant into sexual intercourse through a promise he never intended to fulfil.
The Court distinguished a genuinely made promise that subsequently failed from an intentionally deceptive promise.
It observed:
“We are unable to find any reason to allow continuation of the proceedings.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed FIR
The Court also clarified that Section 69 BNS creates a separate offence concerning deceitful conduct, distinct from rape.
Legal significance: Merely communicating an intention to marry, followed by an unsuccessful relationship, cannot automatically justify a Section 69 prosecution.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 2026: SEVEN-YEAR RELATIONSHIP AND SECTION 69 PROCEEDINGS QUASHED
InDr. Ramdas @ Ramdas Patil v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Criminal Petition No. 10701/2025, decided on 16 October 2026, Justice M. Nagaprasanna examined criminal proceedings arising from a relationship between two doctors.
The complainant alleged that the man maintained a physical relationship on the promise of marriage but subsequently refused because of caste-related differences.
The relationship lasted several years. According to the record examined by the Court, the parties also resumed their relationship after a period of separation.
A charge sheet was filed under Sections 69 and 115(2) BNS, along with provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The accused approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS.
What Did the Karnataka High Court Hold?
The Court examined the history of the relationship, the complaint and the material collected during investigation.
It found that the allegations, even when assessed in their context, did not justify treating the long-standing relationship as one induced by a deliberately false marriage promise.
Justice Nagaprasanna described the prosecution as a:
“classic illustration of abuse and misuse of Section 69 of the BNS”
The High Court quashed the proceedings in Special Case No. 88/2025.
Legal significance: A long-standing relationship, and the circumstances under which it continued, can be important in deciding whether the required dishonest intention is disclosed. However, the duration of a relationship alone cannot conclusively disprove deception in every case.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT 2026: SECTION 69 CHARGE-SHEET AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS QUASHED
In Jitendra Kumar & Others v. State of U.P. & Another, Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 32121/2025, decided on 29 January 2026, Justice Avnish Saxena examined proceedings involving an alleged false promise of marriage.
The complainant alleged that the accused maintained physical relations after promising marriage and subsequently refused to marry her. Related allegations of criminal intimidation were also made against his family members.
The accused challenged the charge-sheet, the cognisance order and the criminal proceedings.
The defence argued that the parties had been in a long relationship and that the available material did not establish a deliberately dishonest promise.
The High Court considered the complaint, statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, and the surrounding circumstances.
It concluded that the material did not justify the criminal proceedings against the applicants.
The Court quashed the charge-sheet dated 30 March 2025, the cognisance order and the proceedings under Sections 69 and 351(2) BNS.
Legal significance: Even after a charge-sheet is filed and cognisance is taken, the High Court can intervene when the legally relevant material fails to sustain the prosecution.
Filing a charge-sheet does not make a defective prosecution immune from judicial scrutiny.
KERALA HIGH COURT 2026: CAN SETTLEMENT LEAD TO SECTION 69 FIR QUASHING?
In Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2026:KER:67015, decided on 3 September 2026, Justice Jobin Sebastian considered a petition under Section 528 BNSS.
The FIR contained allegations of a false marriage promise, administering sedatives and taking intimate photographs. The police invoked Section 69 BNS and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.
The parties subsequently reached a settlement. The complainant filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to continue the prosecution.
However, the High Court made an important distinction.
It held that criminal proceedings involving serious allegations could not be quashed solely because the parties had compromised.
The Court therefore examined the allegations independently.
Considering the complainant’s subsisting marriage and the specific facts recorded in her statement, the Court found that the essential ingredients of the Section 69 offence were not disclosed.
It ultimately quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.
WHEN CAN THE HIGH COURT REFUSE TO QUASH A SECTION 69 FIR?
Quashing is not guaranteed simply because the accused claims that the relationship was consensual.
In AAM v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, 2026:MPHC-JBP:78138, decided on 28 September 2026, Justice Himanshu Joshi refused to quash Section 69 proceedings against a male bank manager.
The case involved allegations that the accused had repeatedly assured a female colleague of marriage and subsequently decided to marry someone else.
The man argued that both parties were educated, financially independent adults and that marriage negotiations had genuinely taken place between their families.
However, the High Court found that determining whether the marriage promise was genuine or dishonest required examination of evidence.
The Court refused to conduct a mini-trial under Section 528 BNSS.
It dismissed the quashing petition and allowed the criminal trial to continue.
Importantly, the Court did not declare the accused guilty. He remained entitled to contest the allegations during trial.
The High Court may refuse quashing where the FIR prima facie discloses the offence and the accused’s defence requires resolution of disputed facts.
A woman’s education, employment or financial independence does not automatically establish that deception was impossible.
FIVE LEGAL GROUNDS THAT MAY SUPPORT SECTION 69 BNS FIR QUASHING
1. No False Promise From the Beginning
The essential question in a false-marriage-promise case is whether the accused intended to marry when he made the promise.
Evidence of genuine matrimonial discussions, attempts to arrange marriage and subsequent unforeseen obstacles may be relevant.
A promise that genuinely failed is legally different from a promise deliberately made to deceive.
2. No Direct Connection Between the Promise and Sexual Intercourse
The prosecution must establish the legally required connection between the alleged deceptive promise and sexual intercourse.
Where the complaint itself shows that the physical relationship was not induced by such a promise, quashing may be considered.
The Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani illustrates why the chronology of the promise and physical relationship matters.
3. Contradictions in the Prosecution’s Own Record
Material contradictions concerning the alleged promise, dates, relationship history and sequence of events may strengthen a quashing petition.
The defence can examine the FIR, statements recorded during investigation and other legally relevant records.
However, minor inconsistencies do not automatically justify quashing. Courts generally leave disputed factual questions for trial.
4. Criminal Prosecution Amounts to Abuse of Process
Where reliable, legally relevant material demonstrates that the proceedings are malicious or otherwise constitute an abuse of process, the High Court may intervene.
This ground must be supported by facts.
An allegation that a woman filed an FIR out of anger, revenge or financial pressure is not sufficient merely because the accused makes that assertion.
5. Section 69 Applied to Conduct Before 1 July 2024
Section 69 BNS came into force on 1 July 2024.
Under Article 20(1) of the Constitution, a person cannot be convicted under a criminal provision for conduct committed before that provision became applicable.
Where an FIR concerns events extending across the commencement date, the precise dates and the applicable substantive law become important.
This is a possible legal objection, not automatic protection against prosecution under any other applicable law.
WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD A MAN PRESERVE BEFORE FILING A QUASHING PETITION?
A properly prepared defence should begin with the complete record, not selective screenshots.
Important documents may include:
- WhatsApp chats, emails and messages showing the relationship’s development and discussions about marriage.
- Call records and lawfully obtained recordings relevant to the alleged promise.
- Marriage discussions and family communications showing the parties’ intentions.
- Travel and accommodation records, where relevant to the alleged dates.
- The FIR, police notices and witness statements, including statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS where available.
- The charge-sheet and supporting documents, if the investigation has concluded.
- Records of threats or financial demands, if genuine and lawfully available.
Digital evidence must be preserved without editing, deletion or manipulation.
Where applicable, electronic records must satisfy the requirements of Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, including certification requirements.
The strongest defence is not necessarily the longest collection of messages. It is the evidence that directly addresses the legal ingredients of the alleged offence.
HOW TO FILE A SECTION 69 BNS FIR QUASHING PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT
A quashing petition is ordinarily filed before the High Court exercising jurisdiction over the criminal proceedings.
The process generally involves the following steps.
Step 1: Obtain the FIR and Available Case Records
Identify the exact allegations, dates, police station, invoked sections and present stage of proceedings.
Step 2: Examine the Ingredients of Section 69 BNS
Determine whether the complaint alleges a deliberately dishonest marriage promise or other deceitful means, and whether the necessary connection with sexual intercourse is disclosed.
Step 3: Prepare the Case Chronology
Organise relevant documents and communications in chronological order. Identify genuine contradictions, missing ingredients and legally significant facts.
Step 4: File the Petition Under Section 528 BNSS
The petition should identify the challenged FIR or proceedings, explain the legal grounds for quashing and annex the necessary records in accordance with applicable High Court rules.
Step 5: Seek Appropriate Interim Relief Where Necessary
If there is a risk of arrest or other coercive action, the lawyer must separately assess available protection.
Step 6: High Court Examines the Petition
After considering the relevant submissions and material, the Court may issue notice, pass an appropriate interim order, quash the proceedings or dismiss the petition.
There is no guaranteed timeline or outcome. The process depends on the legal grounds, procedural stage and court proceedings.
CAN A SECTION 69 FIR BE QUASHED AFTER THE CHARGE-SHEET IS FILED?
Yes. The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is not automatically exhausted when police file a charge-sheet.
Depending on the circumstances, a petition may challenge the FIR, charge-sheet, cognisance order or consequential criminal proceedings.
The Allahabad High Court’s January 2026 judgment demonstrates that proceedings may be quashed even after the charge-sheet is filed and cognisance taken.
However, the High Court will examine whether the case meets the applicable legal standard.
Where the dispute requires a full assessment of witness credibility or conflicting evidence, the Court may decline quashing and leave the accused to pursue the appropriate remedy before the trial court.
SECTION 69 FIR QUASHING VS ANTICIPATORY BAIL VS DISCHARGE
These are different remedies and should not be confused.
| Legal remedy | Purpose | Relevant provision |
| FIR quashing | Seeks termination of legally unsustainable criminal proceedings | Section 528 BNSS |
| Anticipatory bail | Seeks protection against arrest | Section 482 BNSS |
| Regular bail | Seeks release from custody | Applicable BNSS bail provisions |
| Discharge | Seeks release from prosecution before charge when the statutory test is satisfied | Section 250 BNSS for Sessions cases |
Filing a quashing petition does not automatically stop investigation, prevent arrest or suspend the trial.
Interim protection requires an appropriate judicial order.
A man apprehending arrest should therefore consider anticipatory bail independently of any quashing petition.
WHAT MISTAKES SHOULD MEN AVOID IN SECTION 69 BNS CASES?
One of the biggest mistakes is assuming that a consensual relationship automatically defeats a Section 69 allegation.
Another is treating an unsuccessful marriage proposal as sufficient proof of innocence without addressing the complainant’s allegation of deliberate deception.
Men facing such proceedings should avoid:
- Ignoring lawful police notices or court directions.
- Deleting chats or altering electronic evidence.
- Contacting the complainant to threaten or pressure her into withdrawing the case.
- Assuming that a private settlement automatically cancels the FIR.
- Publishing the complainant’s identity or confidential case materials.
- Confusing anticipatory bail with an order quashing criminal proceedings.
A strong Section 69 defence must be based on legal ingredients, authentic evidence and procedural safeguards—not assumptions about either party’s character.
CONCLUSION
A Section 69 BNS FIR can be quashed by the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, provided the recognised legal grounds are satisfied.
The Supreme Court’s September 2026 ruling makes an important distinction between an intentionally false promise and a genuinely intended marriage that does not materialise.
The 2026 Karnataka, Allahabad and Kerala High Court decisions further demonstrate that courts may intervene when the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are missing.
However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision shows that quashing is not automatic when allegations disclose a prima facie offence and disputed facts require trial.
For an accused man, the correct legal response begins with examining the FIR, preserving genuine evidence, assessing arrest protection and choosing the appropriate remedy.
A man should not have to face an unjustified criminal trial merely because a relationship ended. Equally, every quashing petition must succeed or fail on the law and facts—not on assumptions.
FAQs
- Can the High Court Quash a False Section 69 BNS FIR?
Yes. Under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court can quash an FIR on legally recognised grounds. - Can a Section 69 FIR Be Quashed After the Charge Sheet?
Yes. Even after a charge sheet is filed, the High Court can quash proceedings. - Can a Breakup Lead to a Section 69 BNS Case?
Yes, but a breakup alone does not prove a false promise of marriage. - Can a Settlement Cancel a Section 69 FIR?
Not automatically. The High Court must examine whether quashing is legally justified. - Can Police Arrest a Man While His Quashing Petition Is Pending?
Yes, if the conditions for a lawful arrest are met and no protective order applies.
Contact Us
Send a general enquiry to the 69BNS team. Please avoid sharing confidential case details.