Context:
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 addresses cases of sexual intercourse under false promise of marriage. Introduced as a separate offence, unlike the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which did not specifically define such a stand-alone provision. The provision introduces a punishment of up to 10 years and fine, separate from the definition of rape under Section 63 BNS.
Judicial Precedents Narrowing Scope
- Supreme Court and High Courts have emphasized the need to differentiate between breach of promise and deliberate deception
- In Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019), the Court held that false promise must be shown to have existed at the outset
- Long-standing consensual relationships dilute the claim of coercion based on false promise (Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P., 2025)
- Relationships maintained despite awareness of other circumstances (e.g., existing marriage) weaken the claim of vitiated consent (Abhishek Arjariya v. State of M.P., 2025)
Redundancy and Constitutional Questions
- Section 28 of BNS already defines “consent” and includes “misconception of fact” as a vitiating factor, encompassing false promises of marriage
- If sexual intercourse under false promise qualifies as rape under Section 63, a separate Section 69 becomes redundant
- Section 69 lacks a non-obstante clause, making it vulnerable to constitutional scrutiny under Article 14 (right to equality)
- No explicit exception in Section 63 to exclude offences under Section 69, raising legal inconsistencies
Operational Concerns and Recommendations
- Legal experts argue that courts are already quashing such FIRs based on established judicial interpretations
- Police should adopt a cautious approach by initiating preliminary inquiry before charge-sheeting such cases
- This prevents unnecessary litigation, reduces judicial burden, and protects rights of both parties
