The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a man who enters into a physical relationship with a woman under the promise of marriage, and subsequently refuses to marry her without providing any justification, commits an offense under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court dismissed a petition filed by the accused seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him. According to LiveLaw, the judgment establishes that such actions constitute sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, which is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years and a fine.
The case arose from allegations that the petitioner and the complainant had known each other for over two years. In 2024, after both sets of parents agreed to the union, the engagement was postponed due to the death of a family member of the petitioner. The couple then traveled to Udaipur, where they entered into sexual relations based on the promise of marriage. The situation escalated when the petitioner’s father demanded Rs.15 lakhs for the engagement to continue, a sum the complainant’s parents agreed to pay. However, when the complainant’s father inquired about the wedding date in May, the petitioner’s family refused the marriage, and the petitioner himself stated he did not wish to marry her.
Justice MK Thakker observed that while the complainant was a mature woman of approximately 23 years, the sexual relationship was developed under the guise of marriage. The court noted that neither party provided any reason for the refusal to marry. Justice Thakker stated that denying marriage without citing reasons after entering into a physical relationship suggests that the accused’s intent from the inception was not to marry but to satisfy lust under false pretenses. The court emphasized that the object of Section 69 is to protect women from sexual assault under the false promise of marriage.
The judge distinguished between rape and consensual sex, noting that the circumstances indicated mala fide motives and deception. The court held that the petitioner’s actions fell within the ambit of cheating. Consequently, the court found that a cognizable offense was disclosed and that the case did not meet the criteria for quashing proceedings as laid down in the Supreme Court’s Bhajanlal judgment. The petition was dismissed, allowing the criminal process to continue. "The petition was dismissed," LiveLaw reported regarding the final order.