Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: While considering a petition seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, the cognizance order, and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom for offences under Sections 69, 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Single Judge Bench of Avnish Saxena, J., held that Section 69 BNS creates a distinct offence of sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage, and that the allegations in the First Information Report (‘FIR’), on their face, disclose prima facie facts and that no sufficient ground was made out to quash the proceedings.
Background
The informant lodged a FIR alleging that she had been in a relationship with the accused for several years and had resided with him during that period. It was alleged that the accused repeatedly engaged in sexual intercourse with her by making false promises of marriage, subjected her to physical assault, and issued threats to prevent her from disclosing the relationship. It was further alleged that the accused subsequently refused to continue the relationship and disowned her after assurances made before the police authorities.
Statements of the informant were recorded during investigation, wherein she reiterated that the relationship was sustained on the assurance of marriage and alleged deceit regarding the marital status of the accused. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted, and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate.
Aggrieved thereby, the accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings.
Issues and Analysis
-
Whether prima facie the allegations levelled by the victim were sufficient to proceed with the trial, or whether continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law.
The Court identified this as the point of concern in the application. In addressing it, the Court examined the facts alleged in the FIR and the material available on record on their face. The Court noted that the material disclosed prima facie facts indicating a long-standing relationship between the parties, allegations of sexual intercourse initially when the victim was unconscious and thereafter on a false promise of marriage, and continued cohabitation. On the basis of such prima facie facts, the Court held that no sufficient ground was made out to quash the charge-sheet or the criminal proceedings.
-
Whether the factual allegations, taken at face value, attracted the ingredients of the offence under Section 69 BNS.
The Court examined Section 69 BNS, and noted that it is a newly introduced provision which criminalises sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage, even where such conduct does not amount to rape. The Court further noted that prior to the enactment of this provision, courts examined such conduct in the context of Sections 375 and 90 of the Penal Code, 1860. On a prima facie appreciation of the allegations in the FIR and the material on record, including assertions of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage and concealment of the accused’s marital status, the Court held that no sufficient ground was made out to quash the charge-sheet or the criminal proceedings.
-
Whether the existence of a long-term relationship, alleged cohabitation as husband and wife, or a claimed marriage certificate negated the allegation of deceit or false promise at the stage of quashing.
The Court took note of the material indicating a prolonged relationship and cohabitation between the parties, the assertion of a marriage solemnised at an Arya Samaj Mandir, and the applicant’s stand disputing the validity of the marriage certificate. The Court also noted the victim’s assertion that she was unaware of the accused’s prior marriage and that such knowledge came to her only after lodging the FIR. In view of these competing versions, particularly concerning the alleged marriage and the victim’s awareness of the accused’s marital status, the Court observed that such aspects were a matter of trial to be deciphered from evidence and that no sufficient ground was made out to quash the charge-sheet or the criminal proceedings.
-
Whether prior complaints, alleged compromises, or earlier withdrawal of allegations justified quashing of the present charge-sheet and proceedings.
The Court took note of the applicant’s reliance on an earlier police report and an alleged compromise, which, according to the applicant, indicated that the victim was aware of the accused’s marital status at an earlier point of time. However, the Court noted that the said material was disputed, was not part of the case diary, and was denied. In view of this, the Court did not treat the earlier report or alleged compromise as determinative and, on the basis of the prima facie facts, held that no sufficient ground was made out to quash the charge-sheet or the criminal proceedings.
-
Whether disputed questions relating to consent, knowledge of marital status, and intention behind the promise of marriage could be adjudicated at the stage of quashing under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court observed that it was a matter of trial to decipher from evidence whether the victim was aware of the marital status of the accused and, despite such knowledge, continued the relationship. The Court specifically noted that such aspects could only be determined on the basis of evidence. On this basis, the Court held that no sufficient ground was made out to quash the charge-sheet or the criminal proceedings.
-
Whether the broader statutory framework under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 warranted trial-level examination rather than summary termination of proceedings.
Though the charge-sheet was not submitted for the offence of rape, the Court considered it expedient, in the interest of justice, to refer to the provisions relating to rape under Sections 63 and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as the presumption under Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Court noted that the statutory scheme provides for a presumption as to absence of consent in certain cases, including where the accused is a teacher or a person in a position of trust or authority. In the context of these statutory provisions and on the basis of the prima facie facts, the Court held that no sufficient ground was made out to quash the charge-sheet or the criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and declined to quash the charge-sheet, the cognizance order, or the criminal proceedings.
[Kuldeep Verma v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 22, decided on 13-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Mrityunjay Dwivedi
For the opposite party: Akanksha Gaur, G.A
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
