Delhi HC Won’t Quash FIR Alleging Sex On Marriage Promise And Threats To Leak Photos, Noting Accused Was Declared Proclaimed Person

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 32/2026, the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 69, 351, 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The complainant alleged that the petitioner induced her to enter into a physical relationship by promising marriage, later refused to marry her, and threatened to circulate her private photographs. She also alleged that he took nude photographs and blackmailed her.

The petitioner characterised the relationship as consensual and the case as arising from a failed relationship.

During the proceedings, the State informed the Court that a supplementary charge-sheet had been filed and that the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person for non-appearance.

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; it is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, quashing may be appropriate in specified categories, including where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence, are inherently improbable, or the proceeding is manifestly mala fide.

Section 28 BNS provides that consent given under a misconception of fact is not valid consent; under Section 69 BNS, the relevant question includes whether a promise to marry was made in bad faith, with the sole intent to induce a physical relationship, and was immediately relevant to the complainant’s decision.

A promise made without intention to fulfil it from the outset may vitiate consent, whereas a good-faith promise later unfulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances is only a breach of promise.

The FIR and the complainant’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS alleged that the petitioner’s marriage assurance preceded and induced the physical relationship, and also described threats and blackmail involving private photographs.

The Court held that these allegations, read with the charge-sheet, prima facie disclosed cognizable offences and were not shown to be inherently improbable or otherwise within a Bhajan Lal category.

Because the alleged assurance and subsequent refusal could not, at this stage, be characterised as merely a good-faith promise defeated by later circumstances, quashing was not warranted.

The petitioner’s proclaimed-person status and failure to appear or join the investigation further weighed against entertaining the petition at that stage.

Pending applications were disposed of.