Relationships end. People change their minds. Families object. Circumstances shift. None of that is, by itself, a crime. Yet under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, a relationship that does not end in marriage can sometimes turn into a criminal complaint, an FIR, an arrest, and a trial.

This raises a genuine and increasingly common question for both men and women in India: where exactly does the law draw the line between a broken promise and a criminal deception? This article breaks down what Section 69 BNS actually says, how courts test whether a promise was “false,” and what the Supreme Court’s latest ruling in the Kesarwani case means for anyone caught in this situation.

The Practical Reality: When a Breakup Turns Into an FIR

In real life, most cases under Section 69 BNS do not begin with a calculated con artist plotting to deceive someone into bed. They begin as something far more ordinary: two consenting adults enter a relationship, are intimate with each other, and genuinely intend to marry.

Then something goes wrong. Common triggers include:

• Parental or family opposition based on caste, religion, or social status
• Financial instability or a sudden change in circumstances
• One partner getting cold feet or losing interest
• An existing marriage or commitment coming to light
• A pregnancy that forces the issue into the open
• Simple incompatibility discovered too late

When the relationship collapses under any of these pressures, the partner who feels wronged sometimes approaches the police, not always to allege fraud, but often out of genuine hurt, social pressure, or family insistence that “something must be done.” The complaint gets framed as a false promise of marriage, and criminal machinery, an FIR, arrest, and trial, starts moving.

This is precisely the grey zone Indian courts have spent over a decade trying to regulate. Not every heartbreak deserves a courtroom, but not every promise is innocent either. The challenge for police, lawyers, and judges is separating the rare case of genuine deceit from the far more common case of a relationship that simply did not work out.

What Section 69 BNS Actually Says

Section 69 is a new, standalone provision that did not exist in this exact form under the old Indian Penal Code (IPC). Before July 1, 2024, when the BNS came into force, such cases were prosecuted under Section 375/376 IPC (rape), which was never designed specifically for promise-of-marriage disputes.

The bare text of Section 69 BNS reads, in substance, that whoever, by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling it, has sexual intercourse with her, and that intercourse does not amount to rape, shall be punished with imprisonment that may extend to ten years, along with a fine.

Key Ingredients of the Offence

For an act to fall under Section 69 BNS, the following elements generally need to be present:

1. Sexual intercourse took place. There must be an actual physical act, not merely a broken engagement or a called-off relationship.
2. Consent was obtained through deceit. This deceit could be a false promise of marriage, or it could take other forms.
3. The accused had no genuine intention of fulfilling the promise at the time it was made. This is the most contested and most important element.
4. The act does not amount to rape. If the case involves force, coercion, or a complete absence of consent, it is tried as rape under Sections 63 and 64 BNS instead.

What Counts as “Deceitful Means”

The Explanation attached to Section 69 clarifies that “deceitful means” is not limited to a false marriage promise. It also includes:

• A false promise of employment or promotion made to induce sexual relations
• Marrying someone by concealing one’s true identity
• Any other dishonest inducement used to obtain consent

This wider definition is one of the genuine improvements the BNS brings over the old IPC framework, since it captures a broader category of consent obtained through fraud, not just marriage-related deception.

Section 69 BNS vs Rape: Where Does the Line Sit?

Aspect	Section 69 BNS	Rape (Sections 63–64 BNS)
Nature of consent	Consent exists but is obtained through deceit	Consent is absent, coerced, or given under threat
Core issue	False promise or dishonest inducement	Force, fear, or lack of valid consent
Punishment	Up to 10 years imprisonment and fine	Rigorous imprisonment, minimum term prescribed, can extend to life
Typical fact pattern	Consensual relationship that later turns adversarial	Assault, coercion, or intercourse without agreement

Understanding this distinction matters because it shapes how a case gets investigated, what bail looks like, and how a court eventually evaluates the evidence.

The Legal Test: Was the Promise False From the Very Start?

This is the single most important question in any Section 69 BNS case, and Indian courts have been refining the answer since well before the BNS existed.

The governing precedent is Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, where the Supreme Court, through Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, laid down a two-part test that continues to guide courts under the new law. For consent to be treated as vitiated by a false promise of marriage, two conditions must both be satisfied:

1. The promise must have been false at the time it was made, given in bad faith, with no genuine intention of ever being honoured.
2. The false promise must have a direct and proximate link to the decision to consent, meaning the person agreed to the sexual act specifically because of that promise, not for other independent reasons.

This test was reinforced earlier in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675, where the Court drew a sharp distinction between a promise made honestly that later could not be kept, and a promise that was hollow from day one. A bona fide promise that fails due to later circumstances, family pressure, a change of heart, financial trouble, is fundamentally different from a promise that was never meant to be kept in the first place.

Signs Courts Look For

When deciding whether a promise was genuine or false at inception, courts typically examine circumstantial evidence such as:

• Whether the couple’s families were introduced, or engagement rituals were performed
• Whether wedding preparations, applications, or bookings were ever made
• The length and nature of the relationship before and after the alleged promise
• Communication records such as messages or letters referencing marriage plans
• Whether the accused was already married or engaged to someone else at the time
• The timing of the complaint relative to the alleged incident and the breakup

Mere Breach Is Not a Crime

Justice B.V. Nagarathna has reiterated in later observations that the end of a consensual relationship cannot automatically be given a criminal colour simply because it did not culminate in marriage. If two adults were genuinely committed to each other and the relationship failed for reasons beyond either party’s control, or even due to one party’s later unwillingness, that is heartbreak, not an offence under Section 69 BNS. Criminal law is not meant to function as a remedy for a failed romance.

The Supreme Court’s Latest Word: The Kesarwani Four-Step Test

The most significant recent development in this area came in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on September 2, 2025, by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta.

Background of the Case

The complaint in this matter had been filed roughly four years after the events it described, lacked essential particulars, and was not backed by any independent corroborating material. The Supreme Court found that allowing the prosecution to continue on such a weak and belated foundation would amount to nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. The Bench also cautioned that summoning a person to face trial on a frivolous or vexatious complaint is a serious matter, since it damages reputation and drags an innocent person through needless litigation.

The Four-Step Test for Quashing Complaints

The judgment is significant because it goes beyond the earlier “was the promise false” inquiry and gives High Courts a structured framework, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced Section 482 CrPC, for deciding when a case should be quashed at the threshold rather than dragged through a full trial. The four steps courts must weigh are:

1. Is the evidence relied upon reliable and unimpeachable? The material must be credible enough that its authenticity is not seriously in doubt.
2. Does that evidence negate the allegations in the complaint? It must directly undercut the factual basis of the accusation, not merely raise minor doubts.
3. Does the evidence remain unrefuted? The prosecution must be unable to counter or explain away that evidence.
4. Would continuing the trial amount to an abuse of the process of the court? If the answer is yes, quashing is justified to prevent injustice.

Where reliable, unimpeachable material genuinely displaces the factual basis of an accusation, and the prosecution cannot meaningfully counter it, the Court held that the judiciary is justified in exercising its inherent powers to stop the proceedings rather than force an innocent person through a lengthy trial.

Why This Matters Beyond One Case

The Kesarwani ruling matters for two reasons. First, it reaffirms that criminal courts must guard against the misuse of serious offences like Section 69 BNS or rape allegations to settle personal scores after a relationship ends. Second, and just as importantly, it does not dilute genuine cases. Where a complaint is timely, detailed, and supported by credible material showing real deceit, the four-step test does not offer any shortcut to the accused. It is a filter against weak, vague, and delayed complaints, not a blanket shield against all prosecutions.

What This Means in Practice

For someone facing an accusation, or considering filing one, under Section 69 BNS, a few practical realities stand out.

If You Are the Complainant

• Document the relationship as it happens: messages, calls, family introductions, and any explicit references to marriage plans strengthen a genuine case.
• File the complaint without unreasonable delay. Courts routinely treat long, unexplained gaps between the incident and the FIR as a factor weighing against the complaint’s credibility.
• Be specific. Vague, generalised allegations without dates, details, or corroboration are the first target for quashing under the Kesarwani framework.

If You Are the Accused

• Preserve evidence that shows the relationship was genuine and consensual, including communications, joint plans, or attempts made toward marriage that were later frustrated by external circumstances.
• Consult a criminal lawyer promptly to evaluate whether anticipatory bail or a quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS is appropriate.
• Understand that mere failure to marry is not, by itself, evidence of a false promise. The burden remains on the prosecution to show the promise was hollow from the outset.

For Both Sides

Section 69 BNS exists to punish calculated deception, not to referee failed relationships. Anyone navigating a dispute in this space benefits from moving quickly, documenting facts honestly, and seeking legal advice rather than relying on assumptions about how the law works.

Conclusion

Section 69 BNS fills a real gap that existed under the old IPC by giving deception-based sexual offences their own dedicated provision, separate from rape. But the law has never intended to criminalise every relationship that fails to reach the altar. The consistent thread running from Pramod Suryabhan Pawar through Deepak Gulati to the recent Kesarwani ruling is the same: the promise must have been false at its inception, and it must have directly caused the consent, for Section 69 BNS to apply.

The Kesarwani four-step test now gives courts a clear, structured way to weed out delayed, vague, and unsupported complaints at an early stage, protecting individuals from prolonged and unjust prosecution while still leaving genuine cases of deceit to be tried on their merits. Whether you are evaluating a complaint or defending against one, the central question never changes: was this deception, or was this simply a relationship that did not work out?

FAQ – Aapli Chavdi

Is a false promise of marriage a crime in India?

Yes, it can be. Under Section 69 BNS, sexual intercourse obtained through a promise to marry made with no genuine intention of keeping it, or through other deceitful means, is punishable with up to ten years of imprisonment and a fine.

Does every failed relationship qualify as a criminal offence under Section 69 BNS?

No. A relationship that ends due to family opposition, incompatibility, or a genuine change in circumstances is not automatically a crime. The promise must be shown to have been false from the very beginning.

What is the punishment under Section 69 BNS?

The offence carries imprisonment of up to ten years, along with a fine. The exact sentence depends on the facts, the evidence, and the court’s assessment of the deception involved.

How is Section 69 BNS different from rape under the BNS?

Rape involves an absence of valid consent, through force, fear, or coercion. Section 69 BNS applies where consent was technically given but was obtained through deceit, such as a false promise of marriage, and the act does not otherwise amount to rape.

What is the Kesarwani four-step test?

It is a framework laid down by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) for High Courts to decide whether a criminal complaint should be quashed, based on whether the evidence is reliable, whether it negates the allegations, whether it remains unrefuted, and whether continuing the trial would abuse the legal process.

Can a Section 69 BNS complaint be quashed before trial?

Yes. High Courts can quash frivolous, vague, or unsupported complaints using their inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, especially where the complaint is delayed, lacks specifics, or is contradicted by credible evidence.

What evidence helps prove a promise of marriage was false?

Evidence such as a pre-existing marriage, deliberate concealment of identity, absence of any real steps toward marriage, or communications showing the promise was never meant to be honoured can help establish that the promise was false from the outset.

Is Section 69 BNS gender-neutral?

No. As currently framed, only a woman can file a complaint under Section 69 BNS, and only a man can be prosecuted under this specific provision.

What should someone do if falsely accused under Section 69 BNS?

They should consult a criminal defence lawyer immediately, gather evidence showing the relationship was genuine and consensual, and explore legal remedies such as anticipatory bail or a quashing petition where the complaint appears frivolous or unsupported.

Can a complaint filed years after the alleged incident still succeed?

It can, but unexplained delay is a factor courts weigh carefully. In the Kesarwani case, a complaint filed roughly four years after the alleged events, without corroboration, was found to be an abuse of process and was quashed.