High Court Quashes Proceedings Alleging Sexual Intercourse on False Promise of Marriage, Finding Prima Facie Bona Fides

A single‑judge bench of Justice Avnish Saxena heard an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by three accused seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 30.03.2025 and the cognizance order dated 22.05.2025 in Criminal Case No. 419 of 2025 arising from Case Crime No. 55/2025 (Police Station Gandhi Park, Aligarh). The petition challenged proceedings under Section 69 and Section 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in a matter where the principal allegation was sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage, along with charges of criminal intimidation and alleged forceful abortion.

The High Court allowed the quash petition and set aside the charge sheet and cognizance order, holding that the material on record did not prima facie disclose a case requiring trial. The Court found that the factual matrix showed a long‑standing consensual relationship and that assurances given after the accused obtained employment demonstrated bona fides. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The plain reading of FIR, statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS clearly shows that the accused applicant no. 1 and victim were in love relations from the year 2015-16 while both were student of Bachelor of Science. There was reciprocal promise of marriage between the two and even assurance given by the accused applicant no. 1 after getting a job that he will marry the victim shows his bona fides. Therefore, the plain reading of the above material clearly shows that the promise of marriage was bona fide.” The Court also noted authorities recognising that a prolonged continuation of physical relations “in effect takes out the sting of criminal culpability and neutralises it.”

Background The dispute arose from an FIR lodged on 06.02.2025 alleging that the accused (applicant no. 1) induced the complainant into sexual intercourse by false promise of marriage from September 2021 until November 2024, caused a pregnancy in July 2024 and administered abortion pills against her will, and that applicant nos. 2 and 3 criminally intimidated her on 16.01.2025. The complainant stated she and the accused were college friends since 2015‑16, entered a love relationship, received assurances of marriage after the accused secured a police job in 2019‑20, and that sexual relations continued over the period alleged in the FIR. During investigation no material was found to substantiate the abortion allegation and no charge was framed under Section 89 BNS in that regard.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the relations were consensual between adults, the promise of marriage was bona fide and not a deceitful stratagem, the complainant’s statements contained inconsistencies, and that the complaint followed an alleged demand for money. The State and opposite party contended that the promise to marry was used as a deceitful means and that witnesses corroborated the complainant’s account; they stressed that Section 69 BNSS criminalised sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful promise of marriage even where the act did not amount to rape.

The Court examined Section 69 BNSS and relevant Supreme Court precedents, including the distinction drawn in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar that a promise must be proved to be mala fide at inception to vitiate consent, and the principle in Mahesh Damu Khare that prolonged relations without protest may dilute criminal culpability. Applying these benchmarks, the Court concluded that the available material pointed to a bona fide promise and longstanding consensual relations rather than a prima facie offence under Section 69. The petition under Section 528 BNSS was allowed and the impugned charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire trial proceedings in Criminal Case No. 419 of 2025 were quashed. The Court observed that charges against applicant nos. 2 and 3 also lacked supporting material apart from the complainant’s allegations.

Case Details: Case No.: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 32121 of 2025 Case Title: Jitendra Kumar And 2 Versus State of U.P. and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Tripurari Pal, Advocate (learned counsel for applicants) For the Respondent(s): Sanjay Mishra, Advocate (for opposite party no. 2); S.K. Rai, Additional Government Advocate (for State)