The Bombay High Court has clarified that a breach of promise to marry does not, by itself, vitiate consent under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The judgment underscores that criminal liability for sexual offences hinges on the accused’s intent at the time the promise was made, not on subsequent non-performance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Ritesh Naresh Lahoria, aged 26, and the victim, an elder neighbour, were involved in a consensual romantic relationship from approximately 2023 until early 2025. The victim alleged that the applicant induced her into sexual relations by promising marriage. Their relationship continued for about two years, during which she became pregnant and underwent termination. At the time of the procedure, the applicant filled out a hospital form listing himself as her husband. No marriage was solemnized. When the applicant became engaged to another woman, the victim filed a complaint alleging sexual assault under Section 69 read with Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Key Facts
- The victim and applicant were neighbours residing adjacent to each other in Nagpur
- The victim, being older than the applicant, voluntarily visited his residence at approximately 12:30 a.m. on multiple occasions
- Sexual relations occurred over a sustained period with mutual consent
- The victim became pregnant in 2024 and underwent termination
- The applicant signed a hospital form as the victim’s husband during the procedure
- No marriage ceremony was ever conducted
- The applicant’s engagement to another woman was announced in early 2025
- The victim lodged the complaint after learning of the engagement
- The First Information Report (Crime No. 489 of 2025) was registered on 15.03.2025
- Charge-sheet No. 109 of 2025 was filed on 10.07.2025
Procedural History
- 15.03.2025: First Information Report registered at Police Station Imamwada, Nagpur
- 10.07.2025: Charge-sheet filed in Sessions Court as Case No. 1000 of 2025
- 20.01.2026: Criminal Application (APL) No. 31 of 2026 filed before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
- 30.04.2026: Final hearing conducted by Single Judge
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual and rooted in mutual affection, not deception. He argued that the promise of marriage was made in good faith and that his subsequent failure to marry did not retroactively transform consensual acts into criminal offences. He relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and other precedents to assert that mere breach of promise cannot equate to a false promise.
For the Respondent/State
The State and the victim opposed the application, arguing that the applicant’s conduct demonstrated a pattern of deceit. They emphasized that the applicant’s act of naming himself as husband on the hospital form indicated an intent to deceive, and that his subsequent refusal to marry proved the promise was false from inception.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the charge-sheet under Section 69 read with Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the grounds that no criminal offence was made out due to the consensual nature of the relationship and absence of fraudulent intent at the time of the promise.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 69 read with Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 applies when sexual relations occur in the context of a consensual relationship based on a promise of marriage, and whether the subsequent breach of that promise alone suffices to establish a false promise vitiating consent.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, which held that a breach of promise cannot be equated with a false promise. He cited Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 to argue that the court must examine whether the accused had no intention to marry at the time the promise was made. He further relied on Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528), Prashant v. NCT of Delhi (2025) 5 SCC 764, and multiple Bombay High Court judgments to establish that consensual relationships, even if ending in broken promises, do not automatically attract criminal liability under BNS Section 69. He emphasized that the victim’s conduct - visiting the applicant’s residence late at night, engaging in repeated sexual relations, and participating in pregnancy termination - demonstrated her awareness and voluntary participation.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the applicant’s act of listing himself as husband on the hospital form was a deliberate deception, and his subsequent refusal to marry proved bad faith. It argued that the victim’s consent was obtained under a misconception of fact, as she believed marriage would follow. The State relied on the principle that any inducement through false assurance of marriage, even if initially sincere, becomes fraudulent if the accused later reneges, thereby rendering consent invalid under Section 64(1).
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the legal distinction between a broken promise and a false promise. It held that consent under Section 64(1) is vitiated only if the promise of marriage was made with no intention of fulfillment at the time it was given. The Court observed:
"The promise of a marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act."
The Court noted that the victim was an adult, voluntarily visited the applicant’s residence at night, and engaged in a prolonged relationship spanning two years. The absence of coercion, force, or concealment of identity indicated mutual understanding. The Court further held that the act of filling out a hospital form as husband, while potentially misleading, did not establish fraudulent intent at the inception of the relationship. The Court distinguished this case from those involving manipulation of vulnerable persons or where the accused had no prior intention of marriage.
The Court emphasized that the ratio in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar and Deepak Gulati remains binding: criminal liability cannot be inferred merely from post-factum conduct. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the promise was false from the outset, not that it was later broken.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court quashed Charge-sheet No. 109 of 2025, Sessions Case No. 1000 of 2025, under Section 69 read with Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 20,000 with the Public Welfare Account maintained with Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur (Account No. 129712010001014, IFSC UBIN0812978) and produce the receipt on record within two weeks. The application was disposed of accordingly.
What This Means For Similar Cases
False Promise Must Be Proven at Inception
- Practitioners must now establish that the accused had no intention to marry at the time the promise was made, not merely that marriage did not follow
- Mere delay, change of heart, or engagement to another person cannot be treated as proof of initial fraud
- Defence counsel should focus on evidence of mutual affection, duration of relationship, and voluntary conduct to rebut allegations of deception
Consensual Relationships Are Not Automatically Criminal
- The Court reaffirmed that adult consensual relationships, even those involving promises of marriage, do not fall within the ambit of Section 69 unless fraud is proven at the time of consent
- Prosecutors must avoid relying on post-factum conduct as standalone evidence of criminal intent
- Courts must distinguish between emotional betrayal and criminal deception
Burden of Proof Remains on Prosecution
- The burden to prove fraudulent intent lies squarely on the prosecution
- Absence of corroboration for the claim of false promise at inception weakens the case
- Medical records, communication logs, and witness testimony on the nature of the relationship are critical for establishing intent
