Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026

Their friendship subsequently developed into a romantic relationship.

According to the complaint, the petitioner expressed his desire to marry the complainant.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner subsequently established a physical relationship with her.

The first alleged sexual relationship took place in February 2024.

The couple also stayed together at a hotel for two days in April 2024.

The complainant subsequently alleged that the petitioner had engaged in sexual relations with her on the false pretext of marriage.

The petitioner allegedly later declined to marry her because his mother did not approve of the relationship.

An FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 69 of the BNS at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat.

The petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.

The Gujarat High Court declined to quash the proceedings and relied upon the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana.

The petitioner thereafter approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision.

The Supreme Court examined whether the allegations in the FIR actually disclosed deceitful inducement within the meaning of Section 69 BNS.

The Court also examined whether the subsequent refusal to marry, allegedly because of the mother's opposition, established that the petitioner had made a false promise to marry from the very beginning.

The Supreme Court allowed the petitioner's plea and quashed the FIR registered under Section 69 BNS.

The Court examined the distinction between a genuine promise to marry that is subsequently not fulfilled and a promise made from the beginning with no intention whatsoever of fulfilling it.

The Court explained that Section 69 BNS creates a specific statutory offence dealing with fraudulent or deceitful sexual relationships.

The Court observed that the expression concerning a promise to marry without intention of fulfilling it requires the promise to have been made with deceitful intent from the outset.

The Court considered the principles laid down in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana.

It noted that a mere failure to keep a promise regarding marriage does not automatically establish that the promise was false when it was originally made.

The Court carefully examined the allegations contained in the complaint itself.

The complaint indicated that the parties had developed a friendship and love relationship before the physical relationship.

The Court noted that the complainant's own version indicated that the petitioner had expressed his desire to marry her.

Importantly, the complaint did not state that the complainant agreed to sexual intercourse on the first occasion solely because of a promise to marry.

The Court therefore found no sufficient indication that the complainant's consent had been obtained through deceitful inducement.

The Court also considered the fact that the petitioner allegedly refused to marry because of his mother's opposition.

According to the Court, this circumstance suggested that, if a promise to marry had been made, it was not necessarily made with a predetermined intention to deceive.

The Court found that the allegations instead disclosed a consensual relationship.

It consequently found no sufficient basis for continuing the prosecution under Section 69 BNS.

The Supreme Court therefore quashed FIR No. 11196030250292 dated 20 May 2025, registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat.

The proceedings against the petitioner were accordingly brought to an end.

The judgment provides an important interpretation of Section 69 BNS, which specifically criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through specified deceitful means.

The Court distinguished between a false promise made with fraudulent intention from the outset and a genuine promise that is subsequently not fulfilled.

This distinction is crucial because every failed relationship or broken marriage promise cannot automatically be converted into a criminal offence under Section 69 BNS.

The Court's reasoning focuses on the state of mind of the accused at the time the promise was allegedly made.

If the accused genuinely intended to marry at the relevant time but subsequently became unable or unwilling to do so because of changed circumstances, the mere failure to marry does not necessarily establish the offence contemplated by Section 69.

The Court also examined the contents of the FIR itself rather than relying merely upon the later interpretation of the relationship.

The absence of an allegation that the complainant's consent to the first sexual relationship was specifically obtained on the basis of a false promise to marry was significant.

The Court treated the parties' prior friendship, romantic relationship and subsequent conduct as circumstances relevant to determining whether deceitful inducement was disclosed.

The judgment also clarifies the relevance of Deepak Gulati, which dealt with the distinction between a false promise and a subsequently unfulfilled promise.

Importantly, the Court recognised that Section 69 BNS is a distinct statutory offence, rather than simply reproducing the earlier legal framework concerning consent obtained under misconception of fact.

Under the earlier IPC framework, cases involving sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage were generally examined through the provisions concerning rape and vitiated consent.

Section 69 BNS separately addresses specified deceitful sexual conduct, thereby creating a distinct offence with its own statutory ingredients.

The ruling demonstrates that courts must carefully examine whether the factual allegations actually satisfy those specific statutory ingredients before allowing a criminal prosecution to continue.

The decision also reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be invoked merely because a romantic relationship ultimately failed.

At the same time, the judgment does not mean that every allegation involving a false promise to marry is outside Section 69; where evidence establishes that the promise was deceitful from the beginning, the statutory provision may apply.

The case is therefore significant for understanding the legal distinction between consensual relationships, broken promises to marry and deceitful inducement under Section 69 BNS.