Sexual Relations by Married Man Is Deceit From Beginning: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Case Under Section 69 BNS

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a married man accused of repeatedly having sexual intercourse with a woman on the false promise of marriage, holding that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The bench of Justice Avnish Saxena noted that the accused, being a married man, was conscious from the outset that any promise of marriage made to the victim could not be fulfilled. In such circumstances, the allegation of deceit attached from the very beginning of the sexual relationship, court held.

Court dismissed an application filed under Section 528 BNSS by one Vipin Kumar and three others seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated July 22, 2025, the summoning order dated August 26, 2025, and the entire proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur.

The FIR, lodged on May 22, 2025, alleged that the victim came in contact with Vipin Kumar (the first accused) through Facebook in 2018 and was subjected to sexual intercourse on the assurance of marriage. According to the prosecution, the woman became pregnant multiple times and underwent abortions allegedly under pressure. When she became pregnant again and refused to abort, the accused allegedly declined to marry her and began threatening her.

The victim further alleged that she was unaware that the accused was already married with children. She claimed that intimate videos and photographs were recorded without her knowledge in a hotel room and were later used to blackmail her. The FIR also named the accused’s wife, sister and brother-in-law, alleging that they threatened the victim and pressured her family to enter into a monetary compromise.

At the time of lodging the FIR, the victim was pregnant. She later gave birth to a baby girl on October 1, 2025. The medical certificate recorded the name of the first accused as the father, and the applicant admitted paternity before the court.

The defence argued that the relationship was consensual and that the victim was fully aware of the accused’s marital status. It was contended that no deceitful means were employed and that the FIR was lodged only after financial assistance was refused. In support, reliance was placed on Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025), Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), and Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), to submit that prolonged consensual relationships between adults cannot automatically be criminalised as sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage.

Opposing the plea, the state and the complainant argued that the accused, being already married, knew from the outset that any promise of marriage was inherently false. It was submitted that consent obtained on such a promise amounts to consent under misconception of fact. Reference was also made to Section 114A of the Evidence Act and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) to stress that consent induced by deception cannot be treated as voluntary.

The high court examined the scope of Section 69 of the BNS, noting that it is a newly introduced offence criminalising sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage, even where the act does not amount to rape. Court reiterated that there is a distinction between a promise made in good faith but later broken and a promise made without any intention of fulfilment.

Justice Saxena observed that whether the victim knew about the accused’s marital status and whether her consent was voluntary are matters requiring trial. At the stage of quashing, the court held, it could not conduct a mini-trial or evaluate disputed questions of fact.

Holding that the allegations were explicit and supported by material on record, and that the case did not fall within the limited category warranting interference under inherent jurisdiction, court dismissed the application under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 428, CrPC).

Case Title: Vipin Kumar And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another

Judgment Date: February 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Avnish Saxena