Subsequent marriage may justify quashing a false-promise prosecution absent dishonest intent at inception.

The petitioner and Respondent No. 2, both working as Secretaries in Agricultural Produce Market Committees, developed a close relationship through departmental meetings and training programmes.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage but subsequently failed to marry her due to opposition from his family to their inter-caste relationship.

On her complaint, FIR No. 0060/2026 was registered at Police Station Katghora, District Korba, for an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

Following investigation, the police filed charge-sheet No. 81/2026 for the offence under Section 69 BNS.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance on 15 May 2026 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Special Case No. 49/2026.

During the proceedings, the parties married on 23 June 2026 at Arya Samaj, Bilaspur.

Respondent No. 2 verified the marriage before the trial court, produced her identification and marriage documents, filed an affidavit supporting discharge, and stated that she did not wish to pursue the prosecution.

The trial court nevertheless rejected the petitioner’s discharge application on 13 August 2026, observing that the marriage appeared to have been performed to evade the criminal proceedings.

The petitioner consequently invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance and committal orders, discharge-rejection order, and all consequential proceedings.

Whether the allegations and investigation material disclosed that the petitioner made a false promise of marriage with a dishonest or fraudulent intention from the inception, thereby constituting an offence under Section 69 BNS?

Whether the subsequent marriage of the parties, Respondent No. 2’s affidavit and verification of the marriage, and her unwillingness to pursue the case justified quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS?

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s discharge application on the assumption that the marriage was performed merely to evade the criminal process?

The Court applied Section 69 of the BNS, which penalises sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, including a promise to marry made without the intention of fulfilling it, and Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Court held that a promise to marry constitutes a false promise only where it was made in bad faith, without the intention of being honoured at the time it was given, and had a direct nexus with the complainant’s consent to the sexual act.

The Court further relied on Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230 : 2025 INSC 782, reiterating that a genuine relationship which later fails or is delayed cannot automatically be converted into a criminal offence; the surrounding circumstances and the accused’s intention at the inception must be examined.

Subsequent marriage cannot universally erase an offence, but may be considered with the nature and duration of the relationship, the parties’ conduct, and the absence of fraudulent intent.

The Court found that the relationship was longstanding and developed between two mature, educated working professionals, rather than being a fleeting or isolated interaction.

The prosecution material itself indicated that the petitioner had expressed an intention to marry Respondent No. 2 and that the marriage was delayed because of family opposition to the inter-caste relationship; it did not establish that he lacked the intention to marry her from the outset.

The parties’ eventual marriage on 23 June 2026 materially supported the petitioner’s contention that the promise was genuine, while Respondent No. 2’s personal verification, affidavit, and refusal to continue the prosecution further weakened the allegation of an original fraudulent design.

The Court held that the trial court’s inference that the marriage was a sham arrangement to defeat the prosecution was unsupported by cogent material, particularly since Respondent No. 2 had independently appeared and verified the marriage.

Since the foundational ingredient of dishonest intention at the inception was absent or rendered doubtful, and continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose, the case warranted exercise of inherent jurisdiction despite the filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance.

It held that the material did not establish that the petitioner had made a false promise of marriage with a dishonest or fraudulent intention from the inception, and that the subsequent marriage and Respondent No. 2’s consistent stand justified termination of the prosecution in the peculiar facts of the case.

Exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, the Court quashed FIR No. 0060/2026, charge-sheet No. 81/2026, the cognizance and committal order dated 15 May 2026, the order dated 13 August 2026 rejecting discharge, and all consequential proceedings in Special Case No. 49/2026.

The petitioner was discharged from the criminal proceedings, with no order as to costs.