Premium

Karnataka High Court warns against using BNS provision on promise to marry as ‘weapon of retaliation’ in private discords

Quashing an FIR against an advocate based on a woman's allegation of a fake promise to marry, the Karnataka High Court noted that the law punishes deceit rather than disappointment in relationships.

3 min readBengaluruUpdated: Jan 21, 2026 08:41 PM IST

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha was hearing a PIL filed by Bombay Natural History Society member Bhuvan M. (File Photo)

The Karnataka High Court Monday quashed an FIR against an advocate based on a woman’s allegation of a “deceitful” promise to marry, a new offence introduced in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the FIR, holding that the law “punishes deceit, not disappointment; fraud, not failed affection; and exploitation, nor the collapse of a relationship”.

Section 69 of the BNS penalises sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means. “Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine,” the provision reads.

It adds that “deceitful means” may include the false promise of employment or promotion, inducement, or marrying after suppressing identity. The introduction of the offence had raised concerns that it might end up being misused by criminalising even consensual relationships and providing a fillip to the “love jihad” narrative.

The high court said the complaint “is not a genuine criminal grievance, but bears a strong imprint of manipulation and of an attempt to convert private discord into public prosecution”.

“The provision, though newly introduced, cannot be interpreted in a manner that allows it to become an instrument of retroactive criminalisation of consensual relationships upon the mere recital of ‘promise’,” the HC said in its order.

“This court cannot permit the criminal process to be employed as an engine of harassment or a weapon of retaliation and become an abuse of the process of the law, eventually resulting in miscarriage of justice,” the court said, quashing the order.

Story continues below this ad

As per the complaint, the woman had been in acquaintance with the advocate since 2020, when she sought his legal assistance in a cheque bounce case. The complainant also alleged that in July 2023, the advocate visited her house and expressed that he was willing to marry her and on the pretext of marriage had a physical relationship for years.

On the breach of the promise of marriage, she registered a complaint with the police in December 2024 against the petitioner and his relatives under various provisions of the BNS, including Section 64 (2) (m) [punishment for rape] and Section 89 (causing miscarriage without a woman’s consent).

The advocate for the petitioners argued that the woman was, in fact, living with her former husband despite securing a divorce and hence cannot make allegations of “promise to marry”.

The court quashed the FIR, holding that the complainant’s claims were “implausible”.