Allahabad: In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the Allahabad High Court has held that sexual relations established by a married man under a false promise of marriage—while concealing his existing marriage—constitutes an offence under Section 69 of the BNS.

The Court observed that such conduct amounts to "deceitful means," which vitiates the woman's consent. Unlike the previous legal regime under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), where such cases were often debated under the definition of rape (Section 375), the BNS now provides a specific, standalone provision to criminalize sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful promises.

The ruling came from a bench of Justice Avnish Saxena while hearing an application filed by one Kuldeep Verma. Verma sought to quash a charge sheet and criminal proceedings pending against him in Aligarh.

The case originated from an FIR lodged in June 2025. According to the complainant (the victim), she and Verma were in a relationship for approximately 11 years, during which they lived together. She alleged that Verma repeatedly engaged in sexual relations with her by promising to marry her. Crucially, she claimed he concealed the fact that he was already married and had three children.

The victim further alleged that:

The first sexual encounter occurred after she was administered a sedative in a cold drink.
She believed she was his wife and even claimed they performed a marriage ceremony at an Arya Samaj Mandir in April 2025.
She was subjected to physical assault and threats of defamation when she confronted him.

Verma’s counsel argued that the relationship was entirely consensual and had lasted for over a decade. He contended that the woman was well aware of his marital status as far back as 2018. To support this, he relied on an internal police inquiry report from 2018 where the woman had allegedly withdrawn a previous complaint, stating she knew he was married.

The defense further argued that since the woman claimed they were already married in 2025, the allegation of "sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage" was contradictory and could not stand.

Justice Saxena focused on the specific language of Section 69 of the BNS, which is a new induction in Indian penal law.

Section 69 (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means) states:

"Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her... shall be punished with imprisonment... which may extend to ten years."

The Court noted that the "Explanation" to this section explicitly clarifies that "deceitful means" includes:

False promises of employment or promotion.
Inducement.
Marrying after suppressing identity.

The Court highlighted that while this offence is distinct from "Rape" (Section 63 BNS), it specifically targets the exploitation of a woman's consent through deception.

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s precedent in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, which distinguishes between a "breach of promise" (made in good faith but not fulfilled) and a "false promise" (made with the intention to deceive from the start).

In this case, the Court observed that because the applicant was already married, he prima facie knew from the beginning that he could not legally marry the complainant. Therefore, any promise of marriage made by him could be viewed as a "false promise" intended to obtain consent.

Regarding the disputed facts—such as whether the woman actually knew about his marriage in 2018 or if the 2025 marriage certificate was valid—the Court held that these are matters of trial.

"At the stage of considering a quashing petition, the court cannot conduct a detailed examination of disputed facts," Justice Saxena remarked.

The Court found that the allegations, if taken at face value, disclosed sufficient material to proceed with a criminal trial. It held that the continuation of the proceedings could not be termed an abuse of the process of law.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application, allowing the trial against Kuldeep Verma for offences under Sections 69 (deceitful sexual intercourse), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 352 (intentional insult), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the BNS to continue.

This judgment is one of the early instances of a High Court interpreting Section 69 of the BNS. It sends a clear message that:

Concealment of marital status while entering a sexual relationship under the guise of marriage is a serious criminal offence under the new law.
Long-term relationships do not automatically grant immunity to the accused if the foundation of the relationship was built on a "deceitful promise."
The BNS has filled a significant gap by creating a specific category for "sexual intercourse by deceit," ensuring that such cases are prosecuted even if they do not strictly fall under the traditional definition of rape.

Case Title: Kuldeep Verma vs. State of UP and Another

Case No: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 35779 of 2025

Bench: Justice Avnish Saxena

Order Date: January 13, 2026