High Court Dismisses Bid To Quash Charge Sheet Alleging Sexual Intercourse On False Promise Of Marriage

A single-judge bench of Justice Avnish Saxena heard an application under Section 528 BNSS by four accused seeking quashing of the charge sheet, summoning order and proceedings in Case No. 554 of 2025 arising out of FIR Crime No. 312 of 2025. The petitioners challenged allegations that the first accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant by deceitful means — namely, a false promise of marriage — and that co-accused engaged in intimidation, hurt and blackmail.

The High Court dismissed the petition and held that the material on record prima facie warranted continuation of the trial. The Court explained that Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 made sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means including a false promise of marriage punishable, and that questions of the complainant's prior knowledge of the accused's marital status and the voluntariness of consent were matters for trial. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the present case the accused applicant is a married man and came in contact with the victim through social media app. Called the victim to a hotel where the accused applicant no. 1 had entered in sexual intercourse with the victim. It is the case of victim that she was not knowing that the accused applicant no. 1 was married. She also did not know whether the accused applicant no. 1 is the husband of a girl of her village. The prior knowledge of victim that applicant no. 1 was married at the time when she entered into sexual intercourse with him is the matter of trial, because the record is clear and explicit on the point that the victim was not knowing about the marital status of applicant no. 1. Moreover, the accused applicant no. 1 while entering into sexual intercourse with the victim knew that he is a married man and his false promise of marriage to the victim will be broken, therefore, the allegation of deceit is from the very beginning of entering into sexual intercourse. The point of consent of sexual intercourse, knowing the marriage of applicant no. 1, is the matter of trial and the allegation of criminal intimidation levelled on other co-accused, applicant nos. 2 to 4 is also apparent and explicit on record and subject matter of trial.” The Court also emphasised that the extraordinary power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised “with circumspection and in rarest of rare and appropriate cases.”

Background

The FIR, lodged on 22 May 2025, alleged that the complainant met accused no. 1 via Facebook in 2018 and entered into repeated sexual relations on a false promise of marriage. She alleged four prior pregnancies and abortions and a fifth pregnancy in 2024 after an encounter in a hotel; the complainant claimed the accused secretly recorded intimate videos and photographs and used them to blackmail her into continuing relations and to seek abortions. The charge sheet dated 22 July 2025 and a summoning order dated 26 August 2025 framed offences under Sections 69, 115(2), 1352 and 351(3) of BNS against accused no. 1 for sexual intercourse by false promise of marriage, and related offences against the three co-accused (the first accused’s wife, sister and brother-in-law) for voluntary hurt, insult and aggravated criminal intimidation.

The accused contended that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant knew the first accused was married, relying on Supreme Court precedents including Amol Bhagwan Nehul, Mahesh Damu Khare and Uday. The State and the complainant argued that the accused had no intention to marry from the outset, that deceit and blackmail were evident and that Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act supported presumption of absence of consent where appropriate. The High Court examined the factual matrix, previous authority including its own decision in Kuldeep Verma (interpreting Section 69 BNS) and recent Supreme Court guidance on quashing powers, and concluded that disputed questions of fact — particularly prior knowledge of the accused's marital status and voluntariness of consent — required trial. The petition was dismissed and no quashing was granted; the Court noted the accused’s absence from trial proceedings but did not record any interim directions or grant special liberty beyond the usual.

Case Details: Case No.: BNSS No. 45399 of 2025 Case Title: Vipin Kumar And 3 Versus State of U.P. and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mohd. Imran; Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi For the Respondent(s): Lalit Kumar Pandey; Sheshadri Trivedi, G.A.