False Promise To Marry Case: Tis Hazari Court Discharges Accused After Complainant’s Statements Contradict Prosecution Case
Court Finds Three Different Versions On Timing Of Marriage Promise And Physical Relationship
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court at Tis Hazari has discharged an accused facing prosecution under Sections 69 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that the prosecution material itself contained fundamental contradictions regarding the alleged promise of marriage and the circumstances in which the complainant consented to a physical relationship.
The order was passed on 29 July 2026 by Additional Sessions Judge Ms Shreya Arora Mehta, ASJ/SFTC-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in State v. S.C., Sessions Case No. 822/2025.
The Court concluded that the material placed before it did not raise the level of “grave suspicion” necessary for framing a criminal charge. It therefore discharged the accused from the offences under Sections 69 and 209 BNS and directed closure of the related proclamation proceedings.
Prosecution Case Was Based On Alleged False Promise Of Marriage
The prosecution case arose from allegations by the complainant that the accused had entered into a relationship with her after allegedly making a promise to marry her.
According to the prosecution, physical relations followed on the basis of that promise. The allegation was essentially that the promise of marriage was not genuine and that the accused had dishonest intentions when the promise was allegedly made.
The investigating agency relied upon several pieces of material, including the complaint, statements recorded during the investigation, the complainant’s statement before a magistrate, medical records and other documents.
However, when the Sessions Court examined the material collectively, it found that the different versions did not present a consistent account of the most important facts.
Court Finds Three Materially Different Versions
The defence highlighted discrepancies between the complainant’s original complaint, her statement recorded before the magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS, and the history recorded in the medical examination.
The central question was not merely whether the relationship existed or whether the relationship subsequently ended.
The critical legal issue was when the alleged promise of marriage was made and whether that promise existed from the beginning and directly induced the complainant’s consent to the physical relationship.
After examining the record, the Court found that the complainant had given materially inconsistent versions concerning this central issue.
“The prosecutrix has given three materially contradictory and mutually destructive versions on the most essential ingredient of the offence, i.e., the timing and existence of the alleged promise of marriage vis-à-vis the first physical relationship.”
The finding was significant because the contradictions were not about peripheral details. They went directly to an essential element of the prosecution’s case.
Section 69 BNS Requires More Than A Relationship That Later Failed
Section 69 of the BNS deals with sexual intercourse obtained through specified deceitful means, including a promise to marry made without an intention to fulfil it, where the statutory ingredients are satisfied.
The defence therefore argued that a relationship cannot become criminal merely because the parties ultimately separated or because a marriage did not take place.
According to the defence, the prosecution had to show material capable of establishing that the alleged promise was false from the outset and that it had a direct connection with the complainant’s consent.
The Court found that the prosecution material did not present a sufficiently consistent account of these foundational questions.
This distinction is important. A failed relationship and a criminal offence based on a false promise to marry are not automatically the same thing. The prosecution must establish the ingredients required by the statute.
Magistrate Statement Created Serious Difficulty for Prosecution
One of the most important aspects of the order was the court’s treatment of the complainant’s statement recorded before the magistrate.
The Court specifically observed:
“The Section 183 BNSS statement of the prosecutrix demolishes the prosecution’s case.”
The statement was found to be inconsistent with the prosecution’s other versions concerning the sequence of events.
For the Court, this inconsistency was particularly significant because the timing of the alleged promise in relation to the first physical relationship was central to the charge under Section 69 BNS.
No Independent Evidence Supporting Alleged False Promise
The Court also examined whether the prosecution had any independent material capable of supporting the allegation that the accused had made a false promise of marriage with dishonest intention from the beginning.
The Court found no such independent corroboration.
It recorded:
“There is no independent corroborative evidence of any false promise of marriage.”
The absence of supporting material became particularly important when considered alongside the contradictory versions given by the complainant herself.
The Court therefore did not find sufficient material from which a grave suspicion could reasonably arise that the accused had committed the alleged offence.
Contradictions Were Not Considered Minor
Courts dealing with criminal charges do not ordinarily conduct a mini-trial at the stage of framing charges. The evidence is generally assessed at its face value for the limited purpose of determining whether the statutory threshold for proceeding with the trial has been crossed.
But that does not mean every prosecution case must automatically proceed to trial.
In this case, the Court found that the contradictions concerned the core ingredients of the alleged offence.
The Court stated:
“The material contradictions in the prosecutrix’s own statements are not trivial or peripheral; they strike at the very foundation of the offence under Section 69 BNS.”
Thus, the issue was not simply whether the complainant’s evidence might ultimately be believed or disbelieved after a full trial.
The more fundamental question was whether the material available at the charge stage was sufficient to justify putting the accused through that trial.
The court answered that question in the negative.
What Is the “Grave Suspicion” Test?
At the stage of framing charges in a Sessions case, the Court does not decide whether the accused is ultimately guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court instead examines whether the prosecution material, taken at the appropriate threshold, raises a sufficiently strong or grave suspicion that the accused committed the alleged offence.
If the material does not cross that threshold, the accused can be discharged.
In the present matter, the Court found that the prosecution’s own material did not produce a clear and consistent narrative concerning the alleged false promise.
The Court therefore held:
“No grave suspicion arises against the accused so as to warrant framing of charge under Sections 69/209 BNS.”
Court Examines Prosecution Material at Its Highest Value
The Court also made it clear that it was not conducting a full appreciation of evidence at this stage.
Instead, it considered the prosecution material at its highest value and asked whether it was nevertheless sufficient to establish the threshold required for framing charges.
Even on that approach, the Court found the case deficient.
The order stated:
“The prosecution material, even if taken at its face value in its entirety, does not raise a ‘grave suspicion’ against the accused so as to warrant the framing of charge under Sections 69/209 BNS.”
This observation is important because the Court did not simply reject the prosecution’s allegations after weighing competing evidence as would happen at trial.
Rather, it found that the prosecution material, taken collectively, was itself insufficient to cross the threshold for framing the charges.
Section 209 BNS and Proclamation Proceedings
The accused was also facing proceedings under Section 209 BNS, relating to failure to appear in response to a lawful proclamation.
The Court considered the circumstances surrounding the accused’s appearance and the investigation.
In view of the discharge, the Court also directed that the related proceedings concerning proclamation under Section 84 BNSS be closed.
Thus, the order brought the criminal proceedings against the accused to an end at the charge stage.
Further Investigation Request Also Considered
The complainant had sought further investigation and had also sought production of additional material, including CCTV footage and call records.
The Court considered the request in the context of the case record but found no sufficient ground to order further investigation in the circumstances.
The Court also considered the material concerning the investigation and the various witness statements recorded by the investigating agency.
Ultimately, these additional requests did not alter the Court’s conclusion that the basic prosecution case lacked the necessary consistency to justify framing charges.
Why the Decision Is Significant
The order highlights an important distinction in cases involving allegations of a false promise of marriage.
The mere existence of a romantic or physical relationship followed by a separation does not, by itself, establish an offence under Section 69 BNS.
The prosecution must place material capable of satisfying the statutory ingredients of the offence.
In particular, where the allegation is based upon a promise of marriage, the circumstances surrounding the promise, its timing, the intention behind it and its connection with the complainant’s consent can become crucial.
The Tis Hazari Court’s decision demonstrates that where the prosecution’s own material contains mutually destructive versions concerning these foundational facts, the court must consider whether the charge-stage threshold has actually been met.
Criminal Trial Cannot Be Used Where Basic Ingredients Are Missing
The Court also recognised the consequences of unnecessarily subjecting an accused to a criminal trial.
A criminal prosecution can involve prolonged litigation, repeated court appearances, financial costs, reputational consequences and considerable personal stress.
Where the prosecution material itself fails to generate the required grave suspicion, compelling an accused to undergo a full trial may serve little legitimate purpose.
The Court therefore observed:
“To proceed with the trial in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would cause unnecessary harassment to the accused.”
The observation reflects the broader principle that criminal law must be invoked on the basis of legally sufficient material and not merely because a relationship has ended badly.
Key Legal Takeaways From the Tis Hazari Order
| Legal Issue | Court’s Finding |
|---|---|
| Section 69 BNS | The material did not consistently establish a false promise of marriage satisfying the statutory ingredients. |
| Timing of Promise | The complainant’s different versions created serious contradictions regarding when the alleged promise was made. |
| Consent | The material did not clearly establish that consent was obtained because of a false promise made from the beginning. |
| Section 183 BNSS Statement | The magistrate-recorded statement materially weakened the prosecution case. |
| Independent Corroboration | The Court found no independent corroborative evidence of the alleged false promise. |
| Charge Stage | The Court applied the grave-suspicion threshold rather than conducting a full trial. |
| Section 209 BNS | The accused was discharged from the offence along with the principal charge. |
| Proclamation Proceedings | Related proceedings under Section 84 BNSS were directed to be closed. |
| Final Outcome | Accused discharged; prosecution did not cross the threshold required for framing charges. |
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | State v. S.C. |
| Sessions Case No. | SC No. 822/2025 |
| Court | Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi |
| Presiding Judge | Ms Shreya Arora Mehta, ASJ/SFTC-02 (Central) |
| Date of Order | 29 July 2026 |
| Accused’s Counsel | Advocates Abhimanyu Kumar and Yash Saxena, Tripaksha Litigation |
| Counsel for State | Sh. Parvesh Sisodia, Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor |
| Counsel for Complainant | Ms Barkha Chhabra, Legal Services Advocate, DLSA Central |
| Decision | Accused discharged under Sections 69 and 209 BNS |
Conclusion
The Tis Hazari Court’s order is significant because the discharge was not based merely on a disagreement between the accused and complainant about their relationship.
The decisive factor was the prosecution’s own material.
The Court found three materially contradictory versions concerning the timing and existence of the alleged marriage promise and its relationship with the first physical relationship. The absence of independent corroboration further weakened the prosecution’s case.
Most importantly, the Court concluded that these contradictions went to the heart of the offence under Section 69 BNS and prevented the prosecution material from generating the grave suspicion necessary to frame charges.
The decision therefore reinforces an important principle of criminal law: a failed relationship cannot automatically be transformed into a criminal prosecution unless the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence are supported by legally sufficient material.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What did the Tis Hazari Court hold in the false promise to marry case?
The Tis Hazari Court discharged the accused under Sections 69 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) after finding major contradictions in the complainant’s statements regarding the alleged promise of marriage, timing of the relationship and consent. The Court held that the prosecution material did not create the grave suspicion required to frame charges.
2. Can a failed promise of marriage become a criminal offence under Section 69 BNS?
A failed relationship or a marriage that does not ultimately take place does not automatically constitute an offence under Section 69 BNS. The prosecution must establish the statutory ingredients, including that the alleged promise was made without the intention to fulfil it and that the circumstances satisfy the requirements of the offence.
3. Why were the complainant’s contradictory statements important in the Tis Hazari Court case?
The complainant’s complaint, the Section 183 BNSS statement and the medical history contained materially different versions concerning the alleged promise of marriage and the first physical relationship. The Court found that these contradictions affected the foundation of the Section 69 BNS allegation rather than being minor inconsistencies.
4. What is the “grave suspicion” test for framing charges in a criminal case?
At the charge stage, a court does not conduct a full trial or finally determine guilt. It examines whether the prosecution material, taken at the appropriate stage, raises a grave suspicion that the accused committed the alleged offence. In this case, the Tis Hazari Court found that the contradictory and unsupported material did not meet that threshold.
5. What was the final decision in State v. S.C., Tis Hazari Courts?
In State v. S.C., Sessions Case No. 822/2025, the Tis Hazari Court discharged the accused from offences under Sections 69 and 209 BNS by order dated 29 July 2026. The Court also directed closure of the related proclamation proceedings under Section 84 BNSS, finding that continuing the trial would not be justified on the material before it.
Key Takeaways
- Tis Hazari Court discharged an accused in a false promise to marry case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the required grave suspicion for framing charges under Sections 69 and 209 of the BNS.
- The Court found three materially contradictory versions in the complainant’s complaint, the Section 183 BNSS statement and the medical history regarding the timing of the alleged marriage promise and the first physical relationship.
- The Court held that the contradictions were not minor or peripheral because they directly affected the essential ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 69 BNS.
- The prosecution failed to produce independent corroborative evidence establishing that the accused had made a false promise of marriage with dishonest intention from the beginning.
- The Court emphasised that a relationship that subsequently breaks down or does not culminate in marriage does not automatically constitute a criminal offence under Section 69 BNS.
- For an allegation based on a false promise to marry, the prosecution must have material supporting the allegation that the promise was false from the outset and was connected to the complainant’s consent.
- The complainant’s Section 183 BNSS statement before the Magistrate was found to materially weaken the prosecution case because it contradicted other versions relied upon by the prosecution.
- At the charge stage, the Court does not conduct a full trial. It examines whether the available prosecution material raises a grave suspicion sufficient to proceed against the accused.
- The Court concluded that even when the prosecution material was considered at its highest value, it did not raise grave suspicion sufficient to frame charges.
- The accused was accordingly discharged under Sections 69 and 209 BNS, and the related Section 84 BNSS proclamation proceedings were directed to be closed.
Key Legal Principle
Contradictions in a complainant’s statements can become decisive at the charge stage when they concern the core ingredients of the alleged criminal offence, rather than merely minor factual details.
Why the Judgement Matters
The decision reinforces that criminal proceedings arising from failed relationships must satisfy the statutory requirements of the alleged offence, and an accused should not be forced into a full criminal trial where the prosecution material itself fails to cross the grave-suspicion threshold.
Need Legal Advice on a Criminal Case or False Promise to Marry Matter?
Speak with an Experienced Supreme Court Advocate
If you are facing allegations involving false promise of marriage, Section 69 BNS, criminal proceedings, FIR, arrest, bail, discharge, or trial, timely legal advice can make a significant difference.
Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience
📞 Call: 9650499965
💬 WhatsApp: 8851978611
Get professional legal guidance on your case and understand your available legal remedies.
Important Links
- Lawyers in India
- Copyright Registration in India
- Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
- Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965
