Deceit, Consent, and Criminalization: A Critical Evaluation of Section 69 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Breach of Promise to Marry
The criminalization of sexual intimacy resulting from a breached promise to marry has long been one of the most controversial and heavily litigated subjects in Indian criminal jurisprudence. Under the former Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), prosecuting such cases required reading Section 375 (Rape) in conjunction with Section 90 (Consent given under misconception of fact). This judicial construction forced trial courts to equate deceptive romantic conduct directly with rape.
In practice, this blurred the fundamental distinction between an intentional, fraudulent misrepresentation present from the inception of a relationship and a bona fide relationship breakdown resulting from unforeseen familial, social, or emotional developments.
With the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the legislature formally decoupled deceptive intimacy from the statutory offense of rape by enacting Section 69 BNS. Section 69 explicitly penalizes sexual intercourse engaged in through “deceitful means” or by making a false promise of marriage, employment, or promotion without any intention of fulfilling it, prescribing a punishment of up to ten years imprisonment and a fine.
This article provides a comprehensive doctrinal and procedural analysis of Section 69 BNS. It traces the statutory shift from the IPC regime, evaluates the core judicial test of “intention at inception,” examines the role of electronic metadata in establishing consent, and evaluates the constitutional balance between protecting individuals from deceptive exploitation and safeguarding adult autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Statutory Framework of Section 69 BNS: Deconstructive Analysis
Section 69 BNS introduces a distinct legal standard that separates non-consensual sexual violence from consent obtained through fraudulent inducement:
“Whoever, by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry 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.”
Meaning of “Deceitful Means”
The statute provides an explicit explanation defining “deceitful means” to include false promises of employment or promotion, inducement, or marrying after suppressing one’s true identity.
Three Statutory Objectives of Section 69 BNS
By structuring Section 69 as an independent penal provision rather than a sub-clause of rape, the legislature achieved three distinct statutory objectives:
- Elimination of Statutory Stigma: It removes the label of “rape survivor” and “rapist” from cases centered on romantic misrepresentation, reserving rape provisions (Sections 63–64 BNS) strictly for cases involving physical coercion, force, or lack of capacity.
- Expansion of Deceit Categories: By explicitly codifying identity suppression and professional inducements (employment or promotion) alongside false promises to marry, the provision broadens the definition of criminal fraud in intimate relationships.
- Calibrated Sentencing: It establishes a distinct sentencing framework with a maximum term of ten years, providing judicial discretion based on the severity of the deception and the duration of the relationship.
Part 2: Judicial Precedents, The “Intent at Inception” Test & Evidentiary Mechanics
The “Intent at Inception” Doctrine: Precedent and Application
The legal core of Section 69 BNS rests on establishing the accused’s state of mind at the precise moment consent was solicited. In a long line of decisions—including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), Sonu v. State of U.P. (2021), and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020)—the Supreme Court established a strict boundary between a false promise and a broken promise:
| False Promise (Criminal Deceit) | Breach of Promise (Non-Criminal Breakdown) |
|---|---|
| The promise to marry was dishonest from the very beginning. The accused made the representation with a calculated intention never to fulfill it, using the promise purely as a tool to obtain sexual consent. | The promise was made in good faith with a genuine intention to marry, but subsequent external events—such as parental opposition, cultural incompatibilities, financial instability, or interpersonal conflicts—prevented the marriage from taking place. |
Under Section 69 BNS, the prosecution carries the legal burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused harbored fraudulent intent at the inception of the relationship. A subsequent breakup or refusal to marry following a prolonged, mutually consensual relationship does not, by itself, satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 69.
Evidentiary Indicators in Section 69 Litigation
Because subjective intent cannot be directly observed, trial courts and appellate benches rely on circumstantial and digital evidence to determine whether an offense under Section 69 BNS has been committed. To differentiate between a non-criminal relationship breakdown and actionable criminal deceit under Section 69 BNS, courts evaluate four primary evidentiary pillars.
1. Duration of the Relationship
First, regarding the duration of the relationship, a prolonged multi-year cohabitation, a public relationship, or a shared social life strongly indicates a non-criminal breakdown of a genuine romantic relationship. Conversely, a short-term engagement followed by rapid ghosting or abandonment immediately after sexual intimacy serves as a key indicator of criminal deceit under Section 69 BNS.
2. Active Marriage Preparations
Second, courts examine active marriage preparations. Evidence showing that the parties met each other’s families, booked venues, conducted engagement ceremonies, or actively searched for matrimonial arrangements points toward an authentic, non-criminal intention to marry. On the other hand, the active concealment of an existing marriage, the use of false identities, or deliberate and continuous delay tactics indicate a fraudulent motive from the outset.
3. Digital Communications
Third, in terms of digital communications evaluated under Sections 61–63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), chat histories displaying mutual affection, discussion about future planning, and joint financial spending reflect a non-criminal romantic partnership. In contrast, digital messages that explicitly tie sexual access to professional favors or consist of immediate false promises evidence deliberate criminal inducement.
4. Post-Breakup Conduct
Finally, the post-breakup conduct of the parties provides critical context. Mutual discussions regarding interpersonal issues, emotional incompatibilities, or parental objections point to a non-criminal relationship failure. Conversely, actions involving extortion threats, financial exploitation, or immediate desertion upon the victim’s discovery of the true facts strongly support a finding of criminal liability under Section 69 BNS.
Part 3: Constitutional Balancing, Judicial Safeguards & Endnotes
Constitutional Scrutiny: Article 21 Autonomy and Preventive Safeguards
While Section 69 BNS provides statutory clarity against sexual fraud, its real-world enforcement presents constitutional challenges. The broad phrasing of “inducement” risks being weaponized in failed adult relationships, potentially subjecting consensual choices to criminal prosecution. The Right to Privacy and Personal Liberty under Article 21 (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India) protects adult personal autonomy, including the right to enter and exit romantic relationships without state interference.
Four Key Procedural Safeguards
To prevent Section 69 BNS from becoming a tool for coercive leverage or post-breakup retaliation, high courts and trial courts enforce four key procedural safeguards:
- Exercise of Quashing Powers under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Sec. 482 CrPC): High Courts routinely quash FIRs under Section 69 where the factual timeline reveals a long-term consensual relationship, a significant delay in filing the complaint post-breakup, or an absence of specific allegations demonstrating fraudulent intent at inception.
- Preliminary Inquiries and Digital Verification: Investigating officers must verify digital records (under Sections 61–63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) prior to taking coercive steps, verifying whether the parties engaged in voluntary, long-term cohabitation.
- Scrutiny of Arrest Powers under Section 35 BNSS: Because Section 69 carries a maximum penalty of ten years, police power to arrest is governed by Section 35 BNSS. However, custodial interrogation is rarely required in cases built primarily on electronic chat history and personal testimony. Automatic arrests without verified compliance with statutory guidelines violate personal liberty.
Conclusion: Sustaining the Boundary Between Fraud and Heartbreak
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, represents a statutory effort to penalize deceptive sexual exploitation while separating it from the crime of rape. However, the integrity of this provision depends entirely on rigorous judicial interpretation.
By maintaining a strict distinction between malicious fraud at inception and the non-criminal breakdown of romantic relationships, Indian courts can enforce Section 69 BNS as a safeguard against deceit without undermining individual autonomy, procedural fairness, and constitutional liberty.
Endnotes
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 69, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 90, 375, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ss. 35, 528, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, ss. 61–63, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
- Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608.
- Sonu @ Venkatesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181.
- Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108.
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675.
- Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2154 (Four-step quashing test under BNSS 528).
