INTRODUCTION
The Allahabad High Court has made a significant interpretation of India’s new criminal law framework when it held that a false promise of marriage by a married man can prima facie constitute “deceitful means” under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court refused to quash the criminal prosecution initiated against a college teacher for his alleged long-standing sexual relationship with his former student on the basis of a false promise of marriage. It held that consent obtained by deception is not voluntary in nature. Justice Avnish Saxena authored the judgment dated January 13, 2026. This judgment explains what is meant by Section 69, the new offense added by the BNS.
BACKGROUND
The case arises from a June 2025 FIR at Police Station Quarsi, Aligarh. The complainant has averred that Kuldeep Verma, a college teacher, has sexually exploited her, attacked and threatened her. The girl complains that she met Verma when she was pursuing B.Ed. in 2014–2015. She says he initially promised to help her with her studies, then started a personal relationship and even promised to marry her.
She alleges that the first sexual act took place when she was rendered unconscious by a sedative given to her in a cold drink. She stated that they had sexual relations over a period of about eleven years, during which time Verma repeatedly promised to marry her. During this time, she stayed with him at his home and believed herself to be his wife. She also stated that a marriage ceremony was performed at an Arya Samaj Mandir on 24th April 2025 and she produced a marriage certificate to prove this.
Complainant stated that Verma concealed his already married status and three children. She also said he had physically attacked her due to which she got a knee injury on May 27, 2025, and threatened to defame her if she told anybody about the relationship. There was a brief compromise at the police station on June 17, 2025, but she claimed Verma later backed out and later threatened her family. All this lead to the filing of an FIR.
A charge sheet was filed in August 2025 after the investigation for offences under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, and 351(3) of the BNS. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, took cognizance, and thereafter, the accused moved to the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for quashing of the proceedings.
KEY POINTS
The defendant claimed the relationship was voluntary, long-standing and openly acknowledged by the complainant, as evident from the police inquiry in 2018, wherein she withdrew another complaint. He also contended that the allegations of having consensual sexual intercourse by giving a false promise of marriage are impossible in view of the complainant’s claim that the couple is actually married.
The State and the complainant opposed the plea on the ground that a promise of marriage by the accused was false from the very beginning, as it was contrary to his existing marriage. Consent was vitiated by hiding the marital status, and it certainly falls within the ambit of Section 69 BNS, which defines a crime for sexual intercourse obtained by deceit, though not amounting to rape.
Justice Avnish Saxena observed that at the stage of quashing, the Court cannot decide disputed questions of fact such as whether the complainant knew that the accused was already married. Thus, since the accused was clearly married on the date when the relationship started, this fact leads to an inference of no real intention to marry, and the promise would probably be deceitful.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The High Court dismissed the application and explained that Section 69 of the BNS is a separate rule made for cases where sexual consent is obtained by deception and the act doesn’t meet the usual standard of rape. The Court emphasised the distinction between a false promise made with no intention to keep it and a promise which is later broken, stating that the former is a crime.
The Court found that the claims describe a punishable offence and that letting the trial continue is not an abuse of the legal process.
CONCLUSION
In Kuldeep Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, decided by the Allahabad High Court, the court highlighted the protective objective under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act. This case explicitly states that a long-term relationship does not protect claims about deceptive consent from being assessed. This decision is vital as it is showing that concealing a pre-existing marriage can vitiate consent, as a result providing crucial guidance on promise-to-marry relationships within the current criminal law structure regarding the assessment to quash proceedings at the early stage.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: USIKA K
