MP High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In Promise-To-Marry Case Under Section 69 BNS

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR alleging sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage, holding that the allegations prima facie attract the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and require trial.

Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta, sitting at the Gwalior Bench, dismissed a repeat writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of FIR No. 180 of 2024 registered at Police Station Matabasaiya, District Morena.

The petitioner, Raju, had approached the court challenging the FIR dated December 10, 2024, initially registered under Sections 64(2)(m) (corresponds to Section 376 of IPC) and 87 (corresponds to Section 366 of IPC) of the BNS. He was represented by Mr. Yash Sharma, Advocate, while Mr. Dinesh Savita, Govt. Advocate, appeared for the State. None appeared for respondent No. 4 despite service.

According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner, a co-villager, developed acquaintance with her over time and proposed that she divorce her husband, assuring her that he would marry her. It was alleged that he established physical relations with her against her will initially and thereafter continued to do so on multiple occasions under the pretext of marriage. The last alleged incident occurred on August 18, 2024. The FIR further recorded that the two travelled to Gwalior together on November 28, 2024, allegedly with the understanding that their marriage would be arranged, but upon return, the petitioner refused to solemnise the marriage.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations were false and that even as per the prosecution story, the relationship was consensual. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, and coordinate Bench rulings to contend that in similar factual scenarios FIRs had been quashed.

Opposing the plea, the State contended that the allegations, taken at face value, clearly disclosed a cognizable offence. It was submitted that whether consent was vitiated by deceit and whether the promise to marry was false from inception are matters requiring trial and appreciation of evidence, and therefore the FIR could not be scuttled at the threshold

The court noted that since the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force on July 1, 2024, Section 69 would govern the present controversy. Reproducing the provision, the bench observed that sexual intercourse by “deceitful means” or by making a promise to marry without intention of fulfilling it, where the act does not amount to rape, constitutes a distinct offence punishable with imprisonment up to ten years and fine.

From a plain reading of Section 69, the court held that where sexual relations are alleged to have been established on a promise of marriage that was never intended to be fulfilled, the ingredients of the offence may be attracted. In the present case, the FIR specifically alleged that the petitioner persuaded the prosecutrix to seek divorce and continued physical relations on the assurance of marriage, even accompanying her to Gwalior before ultimately declining to marry her.

At the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the court emphasised, it is not required to conduct a “mini trial” or meticulously examine the truthfulness of allegations. The limited enquiry is whether the FIR, on its face, discloses commission of a cognizable offence. “The question as to whether the promise to marry was false from its inception… can only be adjudicated during trial,” the court observed.

Distinguishing the precedents cited by the petitioner as turning on their own facts, the bench concluded that it could not be said at this preliminary stage that the allegations were absurd or inherently improbable. Accordingly, it held that a prima facie case under Section 69 of the BNS was made out and no ground for quashing was established.

The writ petition was consequently dismissed, with the clarification that observations in the order are confined to deciding the quashing plea and shall not prejudice the parties during trial.

Case Title: Raju v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: February 10, 2026

Bench: Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta