#False Promise of Marriage

The Gujarat High Court upheld a Section 376 acquittal, holding that written live-in consent deeds raise a presumption of implied consent to sexual relations, and a marriage promise by a minor is legally unenforceable. The ruling establishes that documented cohabitation agreements can defeat 'false promise of marriage' rape charges when the accused was below marriageable age.

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the rape FIR against a man who had lived with a widow for two years, ruling that cohabitation does not create a presumption of consent under the triple test. The decision underscores that a broken promise of marriage cannot convert a consensual live-in relationship into a rape charge. It limits the use of Section 482 to curb abuse of criminal process in similar cases.

Allahabad HC granted bail in a false promise of marriage case under BNS Sections 69 and 351(3), noting the victim’s refusal to undergo medico-legal examination and the applicant’s lack of criminal history. The court emphasized the absence of incriminating evidence and jail overcrowding while citing Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI.

Bombay High Court rules that consensual physical relations in a live-in relationship, even if predicated on a false promise of marriage, do not constitute rape under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court granted anticipatory bail, emphasizing the protection of personal liberty for consenting adults in long-term live-in arrangements.

Karnataka High Court rules that allegations of 'false promise of marriage' under Section 69 BNS require proof of deceitful intent from the outset. Mere breach of promise or subsequent withdrawal does not suffice for criminal liability, reinforcing the need for thorough investigation before quashing FIRs in such cases.

Rajasthan High Court rules that mere refusal to marry after a false promise, without intentional instigation or active participation, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC. The judgment underscores that passive conduct alone cannot establish criminal liability for suicide abetment, impacting future prosecutions in similar cases.

Allahabad High Court ruled that allegations of rape under false promise of marriage cannot stand if the victim was already married at the time of the alleged incident. The court granted bail, emphasizing the absence of a prima facie case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, where the victim’s marital status negates the claim of deception.

The Allahabad High Court has held that a broken promise to marry, without evidence of fraudulent intent or deception at the time of consent, cannot retroactively transform consensual sexual relations into rape under Section 376 IPC. This ruling protects individuals from weaponizing criminal law in broken romantic relationships and reinforces that consent must be evaluated at the time of the act, not redefined by later disappointment.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a consensual relationship, even if predicated on a false promise of marriage, does not automatically constitute criminal cheating under Section 417 IPC. The court emphasized that dishonest intent must be proven from the inception of the relationship to sustain charges, setting a precedent for quashing FIRs lacking such evidence.

Allahabad High Court grants bail in a false promise of marriage case under Section 69 BNS, emphasizing the statute's non-retrospective applicability and the unexplained two-year delay in filing the FIR. The ruling underscores that consensual relationships predating BNS cannot be prosecuted under the new law, offering relief to accused facing similar charges.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench ruled that consensual sexual relations under a promise of marriage do not constitute an offence under BNS Section 69 unless the false intent existed at the very start of the relationship. The court set aside the charge-sheet, emphasizing that subsequent breach of promise alone is insufficient to establish criminal liability.

The Patna High Court ruled that a subsequent refusal to marry after a consensual relationship does not constitute rape unless the promise of marriage was made with fraudulent intent from the outset. The judgment underscores that consent under misconception requires proof of deceit at the time of the promise, not merely a breach of promise later.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that consensual relationships cannot be criminalized under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) unless there is proof of fraudulent intent from the very beginning. The Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR, emphasizing that factual disputes over broken marriage promises must be resolved at trial, not through pre-trial quashing. This ruling clarifies the threshold for criminal liability in cases involving consensual relationships.

Madras High Court quashed cheating charges under Section 417 IPC where the victim consented to a compromise, holding that a consensual physical relationship predicated on a broken marriage promise does not constitute criminal deceit unless dishonest intent is proven at the outset. The ruling clarifies that mere breach of promise without fraudulent intent at inception does not attract Section 417 IPC liability.

Chhattisgarh High Court sets a high bar for prosecuting sexual offences under false promise of marriage, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt that consent was vitiated. The ruling underscores that a consensual relationship spanning five years, corroborative evidence, and prior travels weaken the prosecution's claim of deceit.