Promise to Marry and Rape Cases in Gurugram: Understanding Section 69 BNS

A large share of the "promise to marry" complaints filed in Gurugram today are not registered under the general rape sections at all, but under a provision most people have never heard of: Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Whether you are a woman whose relationship ended in betrayal, or a man facing an FIR after a relationship broke down, understanding how this section actually works — and how it differs from rape under Sections 63 and 64 BNS — is the first step to knowing where you stand.

What Section 69 BNS Says

Section 69 is a new provision that did not exist in this form under the old Indian Penal Code. It criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through "deceitful means," which the section itself defines to include a false promise of marriage made without any intention of keeping it, false promise of employment or promotion, marriage after concealing one's identity, or inducing sex by impersonation. Crucially, the section is titled to cover conduct that "does not amount to rape" — meaning the legislature has carved this out as a distinct, somewhat lesser offence from rape under Section 63/64 BNS, though it still carries a serious punishment of imprisonment which may extend to ten years, along with a fine.

This is a meaningful shift. Before the BNS, "false promise to marry" cases were prosecuted as rape itself under Section 375/376 IPC, on the theory that consent obtained by deception is no consent at all. Section 69 now gives this fact pattern its own separate box — still a grave offence, but no longer automatically equated with rape in the way it charges and is sentenced.

The Line Courts Draw: Breach of Promise vs. False Promise

This is the single most contested question in these cases, and Indian courts — including the Supreme Court — have repeatedly drawn a firm distinction between two very different situations:

• A false promise from the start — where the man never intended to marry the woman, and used the promise purely to obtain her consent. This can attract Section 69.
• A genuine promise that later could not be kept — due to family opposition, a falling out, financial circumstances, or the relationship simply not working out. Courts have repeatedly held this is a breach of promise, a civil or personal wrong, not a criminal offence.

The distinguishing factor the courts look for is intention at the time the promise was made, not what happened afterward. A long consensual relationship between adults, especially one that continued for years with the woman's full knowledge of the circumstances, is very difficult to recast as a criminal case once it ends — and this is where a large number of Section 69 FIRs in Gurugram ultimately fail to hold up, or are quashed before trial.

Why Gurugram Sees a High Volume of These Cases

Gurugram's transient, high-income professional population — with people relocating for work, living independently, and forming relationships outside traditional family oversight — means relationship breakdowns end up in criminal complaints more often than in smaller towns. Common patterns include:

• Live-in or long-distance relationships that end when one party's family refuses the match.
• Cases where the man is later found to be already married, which can bring in bigamy provisions alongside Section 69.
• Complaints filed after a relationship cools off, sometimes alongside disputes over gifts, money, or property exchanged during the relationship.
• Genuine cases of deliberate deception, including men who conceal an existing marriage or use a fake identity altogether.

If You Are the Accused

An FIR under Section 69 is a cognizable, non-bailable matter, and arrest can follow quickly. The defence typically turns on documentary and circumstantial evidence of the relationship — messages, the length and nature of the relationship, any evidence of continued family involvement, and anything showing the promise was genuine at the time it was made. Anticipatory bail, and in appropriate cases a petition to quash the FIR, are the usual first steps, and timing matters a great deal.

If You Are the Complainant

Where the deception is genuine — a man who never intended to marry, or who concealed a prior marriage — Section 69 gives a woman a real criminal remedy separate from having to prove rape under the stricter Section 63/64 framework. Filing promptly, and preserving evidence of the promise and the deception (messages, witnesses, any documentation of concealment), strengthens the complaint considerably.

How Advocate Rajat Kadyan Can Help

These cases sit at the intersection of criminal law and deeply personal circumstances, and they rarely follow a template. Advocate Rajat Kadyan represents both sides of Section 69 matters in Gurugram — the accused seeking anticipatory bail or quashing, and complainants seeking a properly drafted, evidence-backed FIR — with the same close attention to the facts each case turns on. For related matters, see the pages on rape and sexual offences defence in Gurgaon, crimes against women, and cheating under Section 318 BNS, which often runs alongside Section 69 where money or property was also involved. If you are facing an FIR and need urgent protection, the bail lawyer page covers anticipatory bail in detail, and the FAQ page answers common questions on arrest and next steps. To discuss a specific case, visit the about page to get in touch directly.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case depends on its specific facts and evidence — consult a lawyer before taking any action.