Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Due to Family Opposition Does Not Negate Lack of Initial Intention Under Section 69 BNS

The applicant, a permanent resident of Zambia, connected with the first informant (complainant) via Facebook in November 2022

The complainant alleged that the applicant enticed her with a promise of marriage and invited her to Vadodara, where they stayed at Hotel Sunday from February 12 to 14, 2024, and engaged in physical relations

The applicant allegedly promised to marry her by December 2024 but refused in January 2025, citing his mother’s disapproval

The applicant sought quashing of the FIR (registered on May 20, 2025) under Section 528 of the BNSS, arguing the relationship was consensual, evidenced by financial assistance and gifts provided to the complainant

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

Presumption of absence of consent under Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Principles from Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, distinguishing between a bona fide "breach of promise" and a "false promise" made with mala fide intentions to satisfy lust

Standards for quashing under State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, which restrict interference to the "rarest of rare" cases

The court reasoned that under Section 69 of the BNS, a promise made without the intent to fulfill it constitutes a specific offence

While the applicant argued the relationship was cordial and consensual, the court observed that the complainant consented specifically on the pretext of marriage scheduled for December 2024

The court noted that citing a mother’s disapproval after engaging in sexual relations does not necessarily constitute a bona fide "circumstance beyond control"; rather, it may indicate a mala fide motive to satisfy lust through a false promise

Regarding the delay in the FIR, the court found the complainant’s explanation (efforts to reach out to the applicant in Mumbai and via WhatsApp) sufficient to prevent quashing on that ground alone

Since the investigation was ongoing and the applicant had not cooperated, the court found no grounds to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction

The court concluded that the allegations were not so "absurd or improbable" as to warrant quashing at the threshold, and interference at this stage would result in a failure of justice

The application was dismissed as devoid of merit