The Gujarat High Court has made a significant observation, stating that a man cannot use his mother's disapproval of a relationship as a genuine excuse to evade criminal scrutiny after allegedly reneging on a promise of marriage made to a woman with whom he had an affair. The court refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which penalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, including false promises of marriage made without any intention of fulfillment. The court held that the allegations required proper investigation and trial.
Background of the Case
According to the FIR, the man, a permanent resident of Zambia, initially connected with the complainant through social media in November 2022. Their interactions gradually evolved into a romantic relationship. The woman alleged that the man called her to Vadodara in February 2024, where he took her to a hotel and stayed with her from February 12 to 14, 2024. During this period, she claimed that he established physical relations with her after assuring her that he would marry her in December 2024. However, in January 2025, he allegedly refused to proceed with the marriage, citing his mother's disapproval of the match as the reason.
Legal Proceedings
Following the alleged breach of promise, the woman lodged an FIR at the Sayajiganj police station in Vadodara in May 2025 under Section 69 of the BNS. The man then approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR, arguing that the relationship was voluntary and genuine. He pointed to financial assistance, gifts given to the complainant, and his contact with her family as evidence of his serious intentions to marry her. He claimed that he was unable to fulfill the promise only because his mother opposed the match. The state government opposed his plea to quash the FIR.
Court's Observations
After hearing the matter, Justice M K Thakker made several key observations. The court questioned whether the man's actions and explanations suggested a genuine desire to marry the victim or indicated mala fide motives. The court noted, "It emerges from the allegations that only to satisfy his lust the false promise of marriage was given to the complainant though he had no intention to marry her." Rejecting the explanation offered by the accused, the court further stated, "Merely giving the explanation that mother is not agreed for the marriage cannot be considered to be bonafide reason or the circumstances which is beyond the control of the applicant. It is the applicant who before indulging into the relations could have taken the sense of the mother, however, denying subsequently smokes of malafide motive of the applicant."
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling underscores the legal principle that a promise of marriage must be made with genuine intent, and a subsequent refusal based on familial disapproval does not automatically absolve an individual from liability under Section 69 of the BNS. The court emphasized that the accused had the opportunity to ascertain his mother's views before engaging in a physical relationship, and his failure to do so, followed by a denial, suggests ulterior motives. The case highlights the judiciary's stance on protecting individuals from deceitful practices in relationships, particularly when sexual intercourse is obtained under false pretenses.
The High Court's decision to allow the investigation to proceed sends a strong message that such allegations cannot be dismissed lightly and must be thoroughly examined through proper legal channels.
