A promise to marry without intent to fulfill constitutes a prima facie offense necessitating trial, despite prior marital status.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash FIR No. 401/2025 and the subsequent charge sheet filed on September 29, 2025

The FIR alleged that the petitioner engaged in a three-year personal relationship with the prosecutrix (Respondent No. 2), during which physical relations occurred based on a promise of marriage that was ultimately refused

The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual, the victim was aware of his existing marriage/divorce proceedings, and there was a five-month delay in filing the FIR

Conversely, the State argued the allegations showed a prima facie case of fraudulent intent to marry to obtain consent for sexual relations

1. Whether the FIR, charge sheet, and criminal proceedings under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, should be quashed on the grounds of a consensual personal relationship and delay in reporting.

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which criminalizes sexual intercourse by deceitful means or making a promise to marry without the intention of fulfilling it

The court also exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings

The Court observed that the charge sheet disclosed a prima facie case necessitating a trial

It reasoned that while the petitioner claimed a consensual relationship and prior disclosure of his marital status, these defenses do not automatically absolve him if it is proven at trial that the promise of marriage was made with fraudulent intent and no intention of fulfillment

Regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, the Court noted that such delays in personal or emotional matters do not inherently invalidate the allegations

Furthermore, the Court held that financial assistance provided by the petitioner to the victim during the relationship does not negate the possibility of fraudulent inducement, as these are evidentiary matters to be examined during the trial stage

Consequently, the Court found the request for quashing the proceedings to be premature

The Court refused to quash the FIR, charge sheet, or the order taking cognizance, granting the petitioner the opportunity to contest the charges during the trial process