Sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage with no initial intent to fulfill constitutes an offence.

The applicant sought the quashing of FIR No. 11200010260590 registered at Valsad Town Police Station under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The complainant (aged 42) alleged that the applicant (aged 31) initiated a relationship via Instagram in January 2019.

She claimed that the applicant established physical relations with her on multiple occasions between 2019 and 2025 by giving a false promise of marriage.

On March 17, 2025, the applicant ultimately refused to marry her, citing the age difference.

The applicant argued that the relationship was consensual, lasted six years, and the FIR was a retaliatory measure for the marriage refusal.

The Court applied Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, which penalizes sexual intercourse by "deceitful means" or making a promise to marry without the intention of fulfilling it.

The Court distinguished between a "breach of promise" (where an initially honest promise is later broken) and a "false promise" (where there was no intention to marry from the inception).

The Court also referred to the parameters for quashing an FIR established in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal and considered precedents regarding the validity of consent under a misconception of fact, including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court observed that while the complainant was a mature adult, her consent was allegedly obtained through the applicant’s repeated assurances of marriage made specifically to overcome her initial refusal of physical intimacy.

The Court noted that the applicant knew the complainant's age from the beginning; therefore, citing the age difference as a reason for refusal only after years of physical relations suggested a possible lack of bona fide intention from the inception.

The Court reasoned that because the investigation was ongoing and the charge-sheet had not been filed, it could not prematurely conclude that the promise was merely a subsequent breach rather than a deceitful inducement.

The long duration of the relationship did not, at this stage, automatically negate the allegation of a false promise.

The Court answered that the consent obtained under a potential misconception of fact cannot be treated as valid consent for the purpose of quashing proceedings before trial.

The application for quashing the FIR was rejected, and the Rule was discharged.