The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal case registered in Gujarat against a Zambia-based non-resident Indian accused of engaging in sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage, ruling that a subsequent refusal to marry due to parental opposition does not establish deceitful intent from the inception of a relationship.
A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a Gujarat High Court decision that had declined to dismiss the first information report filed in Vadodara. The apex court determined that the allegations pointed to a voluntary and consensual relationship rather than sexual intimacy induced through fraudulent assurances.
Interpretation Of Section 69
In its September 7 ruling, the bench examined Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which penalises sexual intercourse procured by deceitful means or an unfulfilled promise of marriage with a prison term of up to 10 years along with a fine.
Contrasting the statute with provisions under the earlier Indian Penal Code, the court noted that the new provision maintains a critical legal distinction between a commitment offered in good faith that cannot later be honored and a pledge made with no initial intention of fulfillment. The bench observed that the statutory threshold requires proof that the accused never intended to execute the promise, which constitutes the deceit targeted by the penal code.
Addressing the complainant’s statement that the man ended the relationship because his mother disapproved, the bench remarked that parental refusal, far from demonstrating bad faith, suggested the initial proposal was made in good faith.
Background Of The Dispute
According to the complaint, the woman connected with the accused on Facebook in November 2022. The two met in person for the first time in February 2024 at a hotel in Vadodara, where they spent two days and engaged in sexual relations after he reportedly conveyed a desire to marry her by December 2024.
In January 2025, the man informed the woman that his mother had refused to sanction the union, leading to the dissolution of the relationship and the subsequent registration of a police complaint in Vadodara.
The man contested the allegations, arguing that the relationship was entirely consensual. His counsel presented records of financial assistance and gifts to demonstrate genuine intent, including Rs 40,000 transferred to the woman’s mother alongside mobile phones and clothing valued at approximately Rs 32,000 sent from Mumbai.
High Court Decision And Final Order
In May, the Gujarat High Court rejected the man’s petition to quash the proceedings. The High Court had held that parental opposition could not be considered a valid justification for reneging on a marriage promise, adding that the man should have sought his mother’s approval before initiating the relationship.
The Supreme Court overturned that stance, pointing out that the allegations in the initial report merely showed that the man expressed an intent to marry during their first in-person encounter and the woman permitted intimacy, without establishing that consent was conditioned exclusively on an unfulfilled promise.
Finding no evidence of criminal deception, the Supreme Court ordered the FIR registered against the man in Vadodara to be quashed.
