In Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat & Anr., Supreme Court quashed a rape on false promise of marriage case, noting that the FIR indicated a consensual relationship and did not disclose any deceitful conduct.

It also clarified that a subsequent refusal to marry, where the promise was made in good faith, does not attract Section 69 BNS, and held that for Section 69 to apply, promise to marry must have been made without any intention of fulfilling it.

In the present case, appellant and complainant met through a digital platform, developed a friendship and subsequently entered into a love affair. The complainant alleged that appellant communicated his desire to marry her at their first physical meeting. The complainant thereafter consented to sexual intercourse on February 12, 2024, and the two again stayed together at a hotel for two days in April 2024.

The complainant later filed a Section 69 BNS case alleging that appellant had entered into a physical relationship with her on the pretext of a promise to marry and subsequently resiled from the promise because his mother was not in favour of the marriage.

Supreme Court examined the legal position and observed that prosecution was required to establish that accused had made the promise without any intention of fulfilling it from the very beginning. Referring to Deepak Gulati, Court reiterated that “there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim.”

Court clarified that the language of Section 69 maintains the requirement that the promise itself must have been made with an intention never to fulfil it.

It observed that the words “deceitful means or by making a promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same” bring in “the same rigor of the promise having been given with an intention of never being fulfilled.” Thus, a mere failure to ultimately marry does not, by itself, establish the offence under Section 69 BNS.

Therefore, Supreme Court found no indication that the complainant had been induced into the physical relationship through deceit. Accordingly, It quashed the FIR.