Allahabad High Court Clarifies BNS Section 69, Quashes FIR in False Marriage Promise Case
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against petitioners accused of engaging in sexual relations based on a false promise of marriage. The court emphasized that this section is designed to punish deceit, not mere disappointment in relationships.
Court's Order and Observations
In an order dated January 29, a division bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Abdul Shahid stayed the arrest of the petitioners while allowing the investigation to proceed under other sections. The bench observed that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was based on mutual liking rather than any false promise of marriage.
The court noted, "We are of the view that section 69 of BNS punishes deceit and not disappointment. In the present case, we find that there was an agreement between the parties to marry, and there was in fact no unilateral or deceitful promise by the first petitioner to the fourth respondent (girl) that he would marry her in future."
Background of the Case
The FIR was lodged on December 24 at the Sector 63 police station in Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, by the fourth respondent (the girl) against the petitioner, his father, and another individual. It included charges under Section 69 of BNS, among other sections. The complaint arose after a marriage, which had been settled between the parties, was cancelled due to differences.
The petitioners—Neelesh Ramchandani, his father, and another—filed a writ petition seeking to quash the FIR and, as an interim measure, requested a direction to prevent their arrest. The court allowed this petition, highlighting the timing of the FIR as unfavorable to the respondent.
Key Points from the Court's Ruling:
- The court found no evidence of false promise or deceitful means from the petitioner's side.
- It stated that the agreement to marry existed between both parties, with no unilateral deceit involved.
- The timing of the FIR was deemed uncongenial, as it was filed when the petitioner believed marriage was not possible for various reasons.
Legal Interpretation of BNS Section 69
The court elaborated on the essential ingredients for an offence under Section 69 of BNS. These include:
- A man having sexual intercourse with a woman.
- The sexual intercourse resulting from deceitful means adopted by the man or a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it.
In this case, the bench concluded that neither condition was met, as the relationship was consensual and based on mutual agreement, not deception. This ruling underscores the importance of distinguishing between genuine deceit and personal disappointment in legal matters involving relationships.
The decision is expected to set a precedent for similar cases, clarifying the application of BNS provisions in contexts of alleged false promises of marriage.
