False Promise of Marriage Case Under Section 69 BNS: Defence in Delhi

If you are accused under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) of having sexual relations on a false promise of marriage, the central question in your defence is whether the promise was false from the start or a genuine intention that did not work out. Section 69 is non-bailable and punishable with up to ten years, so the first steps are to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and to gather the record of the relationship. Where the FIR itself shows a consensual relationship that ended, quashing is also available.

What Section 69 says

Section 69 BNS punishes whoever, by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling it, has sexual intercourse with her, where the intercourse does not amount to rape. The punishment is imprisonment of either description up to ten years and fine. The Explanation says “deceitful means” includes a false promise of employment or promotion, inducement, or marrying after suppressing identity.

Before the BNS, such cases were registered as rape, on the theory that consent obtained by a false promise was consent under a misconception of fact. Section 69 now creates a separate, lesser offence. The concept of consent under misconception of fact remains in Section 28 BNS, so some FIRs still invoke Section 64 (rape) along with or instead of Section 69. Our guide to the new codes explains how the sections were renumbered.

Section 69 or Section 64: why it matters

	Section 64 BNS (rape)	Section 69 BNS
Core element	no consent, or consent vitiated	intercourse obtained by deceit or false promise, not amounting to rape
Punishment	minimum ten years, up to life	up to ten years
Anticipatory bail	available, except where s.65 or s.70(2) is invoked	available

Where the police have invoked Section 64 on facts that, at most, describe a promise that was not kept, the first argument is that the case belongs under Section 69 or under neither.

False promise or breach of promise

The Supreme Court has drawn this line in many cases. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), it held that a “false promise” is one where the maker had no intention of keeping it when it was made, and that the promise must have been the direct reason the woman agreed to the relationship. A promise made in good faith that later could not be kept, because of family opposition or a change of circumstances, is a breach of promise, not an offence. In Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), arising from Delhi, the Court acquitted an accused where the complainant, an adult, continued the relationship knowing the circumstances.

Facts that courts look at:

• Length of the relationship. A relationship of several years, with travel, shared expenses or living together, makes it harder to say the promise alone induced consent at the start.
• Knowledge of the complainant. If she knew the accused was married or that the families objected, the theory of deception weakens.
• When the complaint was made. A complaint filed only after the accused became engaged to someone else is examined for motive, though delay is not decisive by itself.
• The messages. Chats and emails usually show what each person said about marriage and when.
• Steps towards marriage. Meeting families, fixing dates or a roka show an intention to marry, which is the opposite of a false promise.

Anticipatory bail

Section 69 is a serious, non-bailable offence, and the police may arrest. The application for anticipatory bail is made before the Sessions Court with jurisdiction over the police station, and then the High Court. For FIRs from South and South-East Delhi police stations this is generally at the Saket Courts. The application should set out the relationship in a neutral chronology, attach the key messages and explain why custody is not needed: the phone can be handed over, and there is nothing to recover. It must not attack the complainant’s character, which courts rightly view poorly.

Quashing under Section 528 BNSS

Where the FIR, read as it stands, describes a consensual relationship between adults that ended, the High Court can quash it under its inherent powers in Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC). This route is explained on our FIR quashing page. Quashing is not a substitute for a trial where facts are disputed, so we assess which route fits before filing.

What the police will do in the investigation

Once an FIR is registered, the investigating officer usually records the complainant’s statement before a Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS, arranges her medical examination, and asks the accused to hand over his phone. Hotel records, travel bookings and photographs are collected to fix dates. The accused’s own account, given through counsel with documents, is best placed on record early, so that the investigation looks at the whole relationship and not only the complaint.

Acts before 1 July 2024

Section 69 does not reach conduct before the BNS came into force. If the relationship began earlier and ended later, the FIR has to be examined with care: conduct before 1 July 2024 is judged under the earlier law, and the police sometimes mix the two. That mismatch can itself be an argument.

What to do now

• Do not contact the complainant or her family, directly or through friends.
• Do not delete chats, photographs or call logs; export them with dates.
• Write down the timeline: when you met, when marriage was discussed, family meetings, the breakup.
• If you receive a police notice under Section 35 BNSS, comply with legal advice; do not ignore it.
• Call us with the FIR or complaint.

No lawyer can promise the result of a bail or quashing petition. We will tell you plainly which facts help, which hurt, and what to do first.