The Gujarat High Court has held that where an accused enters into a physical relationship under the guise of a promise to marry and then refuses to marry without giving any reason, the charge under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) would certainly be attracted.

The Court observed that, though a mere breach of promise is distinct from a false promise, the accused’s refusal to marry the complainant without citing any reason suggests that from the inception his intent was not to marry. Instead, he had entered into a physical relationship under the guise of a promise of marriage.

The Bench of Justice M.K. Thakker observed, “It is true that the complainant was a mature lady aged around 23 years, however, it cannot be denied that under the guise to marry with the complainant, the sexual relationships were developed. There is no reason stated by the complainant or by the petitioner for not marrying with each other. Without any reasons denying for the marriage after entering into the physical relationship under the guise to marry, in the opinion of this Court, would certainly attract the charges of Section 69 of the BNS.”

Advocate Bhavin B. Thakar appeared for the Petitioner, while APP Monali Bhatt appeared for the State.

Brief Facts

The petitioner and the complainant, a 23-year-old B.Com student, belonged to the same community and had known each other for about two and a half years. As intimacy developed between them, the petitioner visited the complainant’s house in 2024. Her parents agreed to the marriage, and the petitioner’s parents also showed their agreement.

The engagement was fixed, but could not take place on the scheduled day due to a death in the petitioner’s family. When asked about the marriage, the complainant’s parents were told that the petitioner would marry the complainant only. On this assurance, the complainant accompanied the petitioner to Udaipur in January 2025, where, under the promise to marry, they entered into sexual relations, which continued thereafter.

Subsequently, the petitioner’s father demanded ₹15 lakhs for continuation of the engagement, which the complainant’s parents agreed to. In May 2026, when the complainant’s father asked about the date of marriage, the petitioner’s family refused, and the petitioner also told the complainant that he did not want to marry her. The FIR under Section 69 of the BNS was then registered.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, a computer engineer, contended that the FIR itself showed the relationship was not created through any false representation at the inception. It was submitted that there was no clear denial of the marriage by his parents or by him, and that the prosecution arose only because the complainant wanted to register the marriage on 16.05.2026, which was not done.

It was argued that a mere breach of promise cannot be treated as a false promise, and that the prosecution must establish that the promise was false when made and that the accused never intended to fulfil it. It was further submitted that the families were actively pursuing the proposed marriage even after the relationship began, and a subsequent refusal cannot retrospectively turn a consensual relationship into an offence.

Observations/Findings of the Court

The Court took note of a report of the Women Police Station, which revealed that the complainant had conceived due to the physical relationship and that the pregnancy of 5-6 weeks had been terminated. According to the statement of the doctor, the complainant and the petitioner came together and requested the termination, and consent was taken from both of them.

On the object of the provision, the Court observed, “The object of enactment of Section 69 is to protect the sexual assault under the false promise of marriage.”

Acknowledging the distinction between rape and consensual sex, the Court held that only by examining the circumstances can it be inferred whether the accused actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives and made a false promise to satisfy his lust, and as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception.

Applying this to the facts, the Court observed, “Though mere breach of promise and not fulfilling the false promise, however, in the instant case, without citing any reasons, the accused refused to marry with the complainant, suggests that from the inception his intent was not to marry, but under the guise of promise of marriage entered into physical relationship.”

Holding that the continuation of the proceedings was not an abuse of process of law, the Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: XXXX v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:70883]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Bhavin B. Thakar.

Respondent: APP Monali Bhatt.

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: