Supreme Court Quashes FIR in False Promise of Marriage Case — No Deceitful Conduct Established. The court found that the promise to marry was made with good intentions and the relationship was consensual, thus quashing the FIR under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2025.

In Favour of Accused
  • 27
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal against an FIR registered under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) concerning allegations of false promise of marriage. The appellant, was accused of entering into a physical relationship with the complainant under the pretext of marrying her, only to later withdraw the promise citing his mother's disapproval. The High Court had previously declined to quash the FIR, prompting the appellant to seek relief from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the relationship, which began through a digital platform and evolved into a love affair, with the appellant allegedly expressing his desire to marry during their first meeting. The court noted that the complainant allowed sexual intercourse based on this promise, but emphasized that the relationship appeared consensual and lacked evidence of deceitful conduct. The court referenced a prior judgment which clarified that a promise made with good intentions, even if later unfulfilled due to unavoidable circumstances, does not constitute a misconception of fact. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no basis for the continuation of the proceedings and quashed the FIR, allowing the appeal and rejecting any pending applications.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Lack of Deceitful Conduct - Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2025, Section 69 - The court found no evidence of deceitful conduct by the appellant as the relationship was consensual and the promise to marry was made with good intentions. The FIR was quashed as the allegations did not substantiate the claim of fraudulent behavior (Paras 5-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the FIR alleging false promise of marriage should be quashed due to lack of deceitful conduct.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR bearing No. 11196030250292 dated 20.05.2025, registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat, allowing the appeal and rejecting any pending applications.

Law Points

  • quashing of FIR
  • false promise of marriage
  • deceitful conduct
  • consent
  • misconception of fact
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (SC) (09) 42

Crl. A. @ SLP Crl. 11526 of 2026

2026-09-07

J. B. Pardiwala J. , K. Vinod Chandran J.

2026 INSC 987

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani

The State of Gujarat & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the refusal to quash an FIR alleging false promise of marriage.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to quash the FIR registered against him.

Filing Reason

The FIR was filed alleging that the appellant entered into a physical relationship under the pretext of marriage.

Previous Decisions

The High Court had previously declined to quash the FIR.

Issues

Whether the FIR should be quashed due to lack of deceitful conduct Whether the promise to marry was made with good intentions

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the relationship was consensual and the promise was made with good intentions. The respondent contended that the appellant's actions constituted deceitful conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a promise made with good intentions, even if later unfulfilled, does not constitute deceitful conduct under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant is aggrieved with the impugned judgment, which refused quashing of the FIR. We are unable to find any reason to allow continuation of the proceedings. The statements made in the complaint clearly indicate a consensual relationship.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a Special Leave Petition after the High Court declined to quash the FIR.

Acts & Sections

  • Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita: 69
  • Indian Penal Code: 375, 90
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Conviction of Accused in Bribery Abetment Case for Lack of Special Judge Jurisdiction. Special Judge Lacked Jurisdiction to Try Offence Under Section 165A Indian Penal Code as Case Was Distributed for Non-Existent Offence Under ...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Examines Ineligibility of Retired CPWD Officers as Arbitrators under Section 12(5) of Arbitration Act. Appointment of Retired Additional Director General of CPWD as Arbitrator Without Contractor's Consent Violates Seventh Sche...