BNS Section 69 can send a man into a criminal case over a false-promise allegation even when the relationship was consensual. Here is the exact law, the latest court rulings, and the defence points that actually matter.
NEW DELHI: BNS Section 69 is one of the most dangerous new criminal provisions for men in relationship-based disputes because it creates a separate offence for sexual intercourse obtained by “deceitful means” or by a promise to marry made without intention to fulfil it, even where the case does not amount to rape.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was enacted as Act 45 of 2023 and came into force on 1 July 2024. Section 69 provides punishment of up to ten years’ imprisonment and fine. The statutory explanation says “deceitful means” includes a false promise of employment or promotion, inducement, or marrying after suppressing identity.
This matters because a failed relationship is now increasingly being pushed into criminal litigation language. The law is not triggered by every breakup. The legal core remains the same: the prosecution has to show that the promise was false from the beginning, and that the woman’s consent for sexual intercourse had a direct nexus with that false promise or deceit.
That principle comes straight from the Supreme Court’s false-promise jurisprudence, especially Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and the later cases that follow it.
For men, the practical danger is obvious. A consensual relationship that continued for months or years can later be reframed as criminal deception. But the courts have also been drawing limits. They have repeatedly said that criminal law cannot be used merely because a relationship collapsed, a marriage did not happen, or emotions turned hostile later. That line is critical for defence under BNS 69.
WHAT SECTION 69 ACTUALLY SAYS
Section 69 covers sexual intercourse with a woman where the act does not amount to rape, but is alleged to have happened because of deceitful means or a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilment.
It is therefore a standalone offence structure under BNS Chapter V, separate from rape provisions. The enforcement date is 1 July 2024, so conduct prior to that date cannot simply be treated as a Section 69 offence by retrospective application.
That means every Section 69 case has to be tested on at least four legal questions:
- Was there really a promise to marry or some other statutory deceit?
- Was that promise false at inception?
- Was consent for sexual intercourse directly caused by that false promise?
- Does the record actually show deception, or only a later fallout?
If the answer to these questions is weak, the case becomes vulnerable at bail, quashing, discharge, or trial.
THE SUPREME COURT RULE MEN MUST UNDERSTAND
The Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar made the law clear: a false promise is not the same thing as a promise that was later not fulfilled. The Court held that to vitiate consent, the maker of the promise must have had no intention of upholding it at the time it was made, and the promise must have directly influenced the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act. That is the most important defence principle in this entire area.
The same logic has continued in later Supreme Court rulings. In January 2025, the Supreme Court again noted that two things must be satisfied: the promise must have been made solely to secure consent for sexual relations without intention to fulfil it from the very beginning, and the consent must have been directly influenced by that false promise.
In Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra as well, the Court stressed that a consensual relationship turning sour later cannot by itself justify the criminal machinery of the State.
That is why every defence under BNS 69 should focus not on moral arguments, but on inception, intention, chronology, and conduct.
WHAT RECENT COURTS ARE SAYING UNDER BNS 69
The newer BNS 69 rulings show two parallel trends.
First, courts will allow prosecution to continue where the FIR, on its face, specifically alleges sexual relations on assurance of marriage and a later refusal, and where the matter still requires evidence. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in February 2026 refused to quash an FIR at the threshold, holding that whether the promise was false from inception and whether consent was obtained by deceit are matters for trial if the FIR prima facie discloses the ingredients.
Second, courts are also pushing back where the facts show a prolonged consensual relationship and no clear material of dishonest intent at inception.
In N. Anbazhagan v. State the Madras High Court said that where sexual intercourse took place repeatedly with consent, and there was no material showing bad faith or deception from the very beginning, the case did not satisfy the legal threshold. The Court relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar and emphasised that repeated consensual intimacy by itself does not prove misconception of fact.
The Karnataka High Court went even further in Harshadeep Girish Parlathaya v. State of Karnataka on 4 March 2026. It framed the core issue bluntly: does the breakdown of a consensual live-in relationship allegedly accompanied by an unfulfilled promise of marriage automatically become an offence under Section 69?
The Court answered in substance that it does not. It said incompatibility, family opposition, or later reluctance do not become criminal intent from inception, and warned that the criminal justice system cannot become a weapon in private disputes arising from failed relationships.
That is a crucial judicial observation for men. A failed live-in relationship is not automatically a criminal case.
THE MARRIED WOMAN ISSUE UNDER SECTION 69
One major fault line already visible in litigation is whether Section 69 can be invoked on a “false promise to marry” theory when the complainant herself was in a subsisting marriage during the relationship. Courts have been treating this as a serious legal weakness in many cases.
The Karnataka High Court in Harshadeep Girish Parlathaya noted that the complainant was already married and had a child when the relationship began, and it treated the long live-in relationship and surrounding facts as inconsistent with a straightforward case of deception from inception.
The Kerala High Court has also granted relief in cases where the material showed a long consensual relationship and the facts did not cleanly fit the false-promise theory. Separately, legal reporting on Kerala High Court decisions from 2025 reflects judicial doubt over invoking Section 69 on a marriage-promise theory where the complainant was a married woman.
This does not mean every such FIR will collapse automatically. It does mean the defence gets a powerful factual and legal argument: if marriage was legally impossible or implausible at the relevant time, the prosecution’s theory of inducement may become internally weak.
THE GENDER PROBLEM IN THE STATUTE
Section 69 is not gender-neutral. Its text is framed around a man deceiving a woman. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2024 held that the provision can be invoked only if the complainant is a “woman” within the statutory framework, and not by a transgender person in the factual circumstances of that case.
Whatever one’s politics, this shows that Section 69 is a narrowly drafted, identity-specific offence and not a universal deception law.
For a men’s-rights analysis, this is one more reason why BNS 69 needs close constitutional and practical scrutiny: it criminalises relationship conduct in a gender-specific way while leaving no equal statutory symmetry for men facing similar deception.
WHAT MEN MUST DO IMMEDIATELY IF BNS 69 IS THREATENED
Do not panic and do not start “explaining” your entire relationship over calls or chats.
Most men damage their defence in the first 48 hours.
- Preserve the timeline. Save chats, emails, travel records, hotel bills, money transfers, photographs, social media exchanges, and any material showing a long voluntary relationship, mutual planning, or reasons why marriage later failed. If family objection, horoscope mismatch, prior marriage, job transfer, incompatibility, or breakdown happened later, chronology becomes everything. Courts repeatedly distinguish a false promise at inception from a later non-fulfilment caused by subsequent events.
- Second, test the FIR against the statute. Does it clearly plead deceitful means? Does it identify the promise? Does it explain why the complainant consented only because of that promise? Does it show bad faith from day one? A vague emotional grievance is not the same thing as a legally sustainable Section 69 prosecution.
- Third, evaluate remedies early: anticipatory bail where available on facts, regular bail if arrest has occurred, quashing if the FIR itself is defective, discharge if the charge-sheet still does not make out the ingredients, and a trial strategy centred on inception-intent-nexus. Recent cases show that courts are willing to intervene where the prosecution narrative is only a dressed-up breakup story.
THE HARD TRUTH ABOUT BNS 69
BNS 69 has created a new pressure point for men in India. It gives relationship failure a criminal litigation route. But the law is still not a free pass for every allegation. The judiciary has already made one thing clear: criminal liability does not arise merely because a relationship ended badly. The prosecution must prove deception from the very start, not heartbreak after the fact.
That is where men need to become legally disciplined. Do not fight these cases emotionally. Fight them on statutory ingredients, Supreme Court standards, documentary chronology, and contradictions in the prosecution story.
When handled correctly, BNS 69 is not unbeatable. But when ignored, it can become a devastating criminal trap.
FAQs
- Is every failed promise to marry a BNS 69 offence?
No. The promise must be false from the very beginning, not merely broken later. - Can a consensual long relationship still become a BNS 69 case?
Yes, an FIR can be filed, but a long consensual relationship often strengthens the defence that there was no initial deceit. - What is the punishment under BNS Section 69?
Up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fine. - Does BNS 69 apply only after 1 July 2024?
Yes. BNS came into force on 1 July 2024. - What is the strongest defence in a BNS 69 case?
Show that there was no dishonest intent at inception and no direct nexus between the alleged promise and the sexual relationship.
