Section 69 BNS False Promise of Marriage in UP: When Can the FIR Be Quashed at the Allahabad High Court?

Section 69 BNS reads: "Whoever, by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine."

The explanation to the section clarifies that "deceitful means" includes inducement for, or false promise of, employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity. Three elements must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt:

• The promise of marriage must have been false from the very inception — given without any intention to honour it.
• The promise must bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.
• The act must not amount to rape under Section 63 BNS — that is, there was apparent consent, but consent obtained by deceit.

A subsequent failure to marry — because of family opposition, financial difficulty, or a breakdown of the relationship — is not sufficient to attract Section 69. The dishonest intention must exist at the time the promise was made. This distinction is the single most important defence ground for a man accused under Section 69 BNS in any Lucknow police station.

In a February 2026 ruling, a Single Judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court refused to quash a Section 69 BNS charge-sheet, holding that the allegations in the FIR on their face disclosed a prima facie offence and that the relationship of cause and effect between the false promise and the sexual act was clearly pleaded. The Court reiterated that quashing under Section 528 BNSS cannot be used as a mini-trial.

However, the High Court has also quashed several Section 69 FIRs where the record itself showed that:

• The relationship subsisted for several years with the complainant fully aware of the man's circumstances.
• The complainant was already married, or the parties were in an undisputed consensual live-in arrangement.
• The FIR was filed only after a dispute over property, money, or refusal to marry a third party.
• The complaint was lodged years after the alleged incident, with no explanation for the delay.

The pattern emerging from the Lucknow Bench in 2026 is that the Court will distinguish a breach of promise (civil in nature) from a false promise from inception (criminal under Section 69). This mirrors the Supreme Court's settled view under the old Section 376 IPC framework, now carried forward into BNS jurisprudence.

Many people, including police officers in UP, still treat Section 69 BNS as identical to the old "rape by false promise of marriage" charge. There are critical differences that a defence lawyer must press at every stage.

Because Section 69 is a discrete, lesser offence than rape, a clean defence strategy can often secure anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court at Lucknow or from the High Court, even before arrest. This is a significant tactical improvement over the pre-BNS regime.

Based on 2025–2026 orders of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow and Prayagraj, the recurring grounds on which Section 69 BNS proceedings are being quashed under Section 528 BNSS include:

1. Long consensual relationship with no early protest — where the parties cohabited or were in a relationship for years and the complaint surfaced only after a breakdown.
2. No nexus between alleged promise and sexual act — where the FIR itself shows the relationship pre-dated any promise of marriage.
3. Complainant already married — making any "promise of marriage" legally impossible to act upon, hence not capable of inducing consent in law.
4. Vague FIR without dates, place, or specifics — bald allegations cannot sustain a Section 69 BNS prosecution.
5. FIR filed as counter-blast — typically after a property dispute, dowry demand recovery, or a separate criminal complaint by the man's family.
6. Material contradictions between Section 173 BNSS statement and Section 183 BNSS statement recorded before the Magistrate.

The High Court has consistently held that where the FIR, read at its highest, does not even prima facie disclose the ingredient of dishonest intention at inception, continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process. This is the doorway through which a well-prepared quashing petition walks.

If you have received a notice under Section 35 BNSS, learnt of an FIR, or anticipate one, the following sequence — actually used in matters before the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench — is the safest:

• Step 1 — Preserve evidence immediately. Chats, call logs, photographs, travel records, social media posts, joint bills, witness names. Anything showing a long, mutual, consensual relationship.
• Step 2 — Do not give any statement to police without counsel. A casual admission of "we were going to marry" is routinely twisted in case diaries.
• Step 3 — Move for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS before the Sessions Court at Lucknow; if rejected, before the High Court. Section 69 is not an offence where custodial interrogation is usually essential.
• Step 4 — Examine the FIR for the three ingredients. If any one is missing on the face of the FIR, plan a Section 528 BNSS quashing petition.
• Step 5 — File the quashing petition with documentary evidence annexed — chats, photos, hotel records — to show the High Court that the relationship was consensual and not induced by any false promise.
• Step 6 — Stay of further proceedings can be sought during the pendency of the quashing petition; the Court routinely grants it where a prima facie case is made out.

Speed matters. The earlier the defence is built, the easier it is to prevent a charge-sheet from being filed, which is when the case becomes harder to undo.

Both sides — complainant and accused — are still adjusting to the BNS framework. A few misconceptions are routinely encountered in Lucknow police stations and Lucknow Family Court corridors:

• "Any failed engagement is Section 69." Wrong. There must be sexual intercourse and a false promise from inception.
• "Live-in for two years = automatic Section 69 if it breaks down." Wrong. The longer the consensual cohabitation, the weaker the case for inducement.
• "Section 69 is bailable because punishment is up to 10 years." Wrong. It is a serious cognizable offence; bail must be sought judicially.
• "FIR cannot be quashed once charge-sheet is filed." Wrong. The Allahabad High Court regularly quashes proceedings even after charge-sheet under Section 528 BNSS.
• "Compromise between parties closes the case." Section 69 is non-compoundable, but compromise is a strong factor the High Court considers while exercising its inherent powers.

For both genuine victims and falsely implicated accused, the right course is to consult an experienced criminal lawyer in Lucknow before making any irreversible statement to the police.

Advocate Onkar Pandey (Bar Council UP 4825-1999) is a senior advocate practising before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench and the Sessions and Family Courts at Lucknow. He regularly appears in Section 69 BNS quashing petitions, anticipatory bail applications and matrimonial disputes for clients across Uttar Pradesh. His chamber, Chamber A-406, High Court, Lucknow, handles criminal defence, FIR quashing, bail and family law matters with a focus on early intervention and documentary preparation. To discuss a Section 69 BNS notice or FIR, contact Advocate Onkar Pandey at +91 98392 71553.