Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat

2026 INSC 987

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11526 of 2026 (printed as Crl. A. @ SLP Crl. 11526 of 2026)
Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: J. B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran (judgment by Not stated in the printed order; signed by both judges)
Citation: 2026 INSC 987
Provisions: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 69 (deceitful means, or a promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling it, and sexual intercourse not amounting to rape; the offence in the FIR, para 2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 375 read with s. 90 (the earlier prosecution of a false promise of marriage, para 4); now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 63 (rape) and s. 28(a) (consent given under a misconception of fact)

Headnote

Sensitive matter. Sexual-offence matter: a Supreme Court order quashing an FIR under BNS s. 69 (promise to marry, later not kept) registered at Vadodara. The complainant is not named in this file or in any extract; she is referred to only as the complainant or the second respondent. The order also refers to the complainant's mother, who is not named.

Promise to marry; deceitful means (BNS s. 69) · BNS s. 69 · IPC s. 375 read with s. 90 (BNS s. 63 and s. 28(a)) · Promise made in good faith, later not kept · Consensual relationship · Quashing of FIR · Reportable

The case, in the Court's words

The appellant is an accused under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). [...] The second respondent is the complainant, who alleged that under the pretext of the promise to marry, the appellant entered into physical relations with the second respondent and later resiled from his promise on the allegation that his mother was not favourable to such a marriage with the second respondent. [para 2]

Held

The BNS by incorporating Section 69 brought in a separate offence carving out the fraudulent and deceitful conduct as spoken of therein from the grave offence of rape, while at the same time providing a penalty for the deceptive conduct alleged therein. [para 4]
The word employed “deceitful means or by making a promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same” brings in the same rigor of the promise having been given with an intention of never being fulfilled, which is the deceitful conduct sought to be punished. [para 4]
The statements made in the complaint clearly indicate a consensual relationship and we do not find anything to find a deceitful conduct, [...] the appellant having induced the complainant into sexual intercourse, which she succumbed to only on the promise to marry. [para 5]
On the mere communication of the desire of the appellant to marry her, we are unable to find the appellant having used any deceitful means. In any event, the very complaint is that the appellant refused to marry her later, because his mother did not permit it, which indicates that the promise was made with all good intention, if at all it was made. [para 6]

Result

We hence quash FIR bearing No.11196030250292 dated 20.05.2025, registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat. [para 7]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

The order is marked REPORTABLE on its first page. The High Court had relied on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675; this Court quotes para 24 of that decision (para 3) and describes its holding under IPC s. 90 (para 4).

The headnote consists of extracts from the Court's judgment, selected by The Daily Bench for convenience. The selection is not part of the judgment, is not a law report and should not be cited. It may contain errors; rely on the official judgment. Library reference TDB-LL BNS-69/07 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.