False Promise of Marriage Is Not Always a Crime: Supreme Court Explains Section 69 BNS
Case Law Analysis | Criminal Law | Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Case: Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat & Anr. | Supreme Court of India | 7 September 2026 | 2026 INSC 987 | 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1818
Introduction
Is an individual liable for punishment under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for entering into a sexual relationship upon making a marriage promise but later backing out on it?
The Supreme Court of India in the case of Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat analyzed this significant legal issue. The Court explained the difference between a promise to marry without any intent of marrying right from the start and a promise to marry but, due to changed circumstances, marriage could not take place.
The case shows that it is not a criminal offense to refuse marriage. What matters is the intention of the accused when he or she made the promise.
1. Facts of the Case—Section 69 BNS
- The appellant, Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani, got acquainted with the complainant through a digital mode.
- Their acquaintance over time led to the development of a romantic relation.
2. As per the complaint: Section 69 BNS
- The appellant told of his willingness to marry the complainant during their first physical meeting.
- Then, they indulged in a physical relationship with each other.
- They met each other again in April 2024 and are said to have spent two days with each other in a hotel.
- Afterwards, the appellant refused to marry the complainant by saying that his mother did not agree to the marriage.
- After such incidents, an FIR was registered against the appellant on 20 May 2025 at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat, under Section 69 BNS, claiming that a physical relationship had taken place with the false promise of marriage.
- Quashing of the FIR was sought by the accused in the High Court, which was rejected by the court. The case was brought before the Supreme Court of India.
3. Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court
The main issue of law before the Supreme Court was
- Is a refusal to marry subsequently a case of making a false promise to marry under Section 69 of BNS?
The Court had to decide if the allegations made in the FIR showed any element of cheating or if they were indicative of a relationship in which the marriage promise was not fulfilled.
4. Understanding Section 69 BNS
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, addresses sexual intercourse through deceitful means or making a false promise of marriage to a woman without any intention of marrying her, but the sexual act is not considered rape.
The section provides that the offender will face a jail sentence of up to 10 years and be fined. 
5. Essentials of Section 69 BNS
- Sexual intercourse with a woman.
- A false promise of marriage made without the intention to fulfill it or the application of some other deceitful method.
- Linkage between the deceitful practice and the sexual intercourse.
- It is not rape.
- The crucial aspect in the case of a false promise of marriage is the intention behind the making of the promise at the very outset. The mere failure to keep the promise at a later stage is not enough. Sexual intercourse with a woman.
- A false promise of marriage made without the intention to fulfill it or the application of some other deceitful method.
- Linkage between the deceitful practice and the sexual intercourse.
- It is not rape.
- The crucial aspect in the case of a false promise of marriage is the intention behind the making of the promise at the very outset. The mere failure to keep the promise at a later stage is not enough.
6. Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court relied on the principles set out in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675, wherein a distinction is drawn between a false promise that is made with an intention to deceive right from the beginning and a true promise that later could not be fulfilled due to some unforeseeable circumstances.
The Supreme Court has opined that Section 69 BNS deals with fraud and deception. In order to make out a case under Section 69, the promise to marry must have been made with no intention to fulfill the same.
- The Supreme Court noticed the following facts:
The parties met each other for the first time through digital media.
The friendship turned into a romantic affair.
The complaint alleged that the appellant made up his mind to marry the complainant.
The complaint did not allege that physical relations were allowed because of any promise to marry.
The reason for refusal to marry after that was opposition from the appellant’s mother.
The Supreme Court held that the allegations in the FIR suggested a mutual relationship between the parties and there was nothing to show that the appellant had made any deceitful practice.
7. Difference Between a False Promise and a Failed Promise
A. False Marriage Promise
B. Failed Promise
- There was no real intention to marry from the very start.
- A person makes a marriage promise with no intention of keeping that promise and makes use of such a marriage promise to have sex
- There was genuine intention from the very start.
- A person has a genuine intention to get married but fails to do so because of some later circumstances.
- The difference depends on the intention and proof in each individual case.
8. Final Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court could not find any basis to prove that the appellant committed fraudulent practices and made a marriage proposal without any intention of following through.
This is also due to the description of the complainant on how the relationship started and the reason why she refused to get married to the appellant.
Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed FIR Number 11196030250292 filed on 20 May 2025, recorded at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat, and set aside the appeal. 
FIR Dismissed
Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat Section 69 BNS | 7 September 2026
9. Legal Significance of the Judgment
The ruling sheds much light on the provisions of Section 69 BNS in the instance of making a promise to marry.
To begin with, mere later unwillingness to marry is not enough in itself. It is necessary for the prosecution to show that the promise was made without any intention of carrying out.
Intention in the moment of making the promise is very important. It is essential to find out whether the promise was made or used as deceitful inducement.
It is also essential to consider the specifics of each case individually. A consensual relationship does not automatically exclude the possibility of applying Section 69. What matters is the situation in which the consent was given and whether it was gained by deceitful means.
Last but not least, the ruling is not a universal exemption. In case of showing the intention of intentionally deceiving somebody with a promise to marry, making sex intercourse possible, the process according to Section 69 may still take place.
Conclusion—Section 69 BNS
In the case of Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat, the apex court emphasized once again the need for the distinction to be made between a false promise to marry and a real one that is not honored.
It is evident from the ruling that merely a failure of relationship and refusal to marry should not be taken automatically as a criminal act under Section 69 BNS. The intent behind the promise at its making stage and deceitful persuasion continue to play an important role in such cases.
The key law to be remembered is that a broken promise to marry does not mean a false promise to marry.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. The applicability of Section 69 BNS may vary on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific circumstances.