Kundli Mismatches and Section 69 BNS: Why the New "False Promise" Jurisprudence is a Minefield for Defense Counsel

The Ghost of Section 90 IPC Haunts the BNS

When the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced the Indian Penal Code, one of the most debated additions was Section 69, which explicitly criminalized sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means or making a false promise to marry. The legislative intent was ostensibly to clear the jurisprudential fog. Under the IPC, courts had to perform legal gymnastics, reading Section 90 (consent given under misconception of fact) with Section 375 (rape) to penalize such acts. Section 69 BNS created a distinct offence, punishable by up to 10 years in prison—less severe than the life sentence mandated for rape, but still a devastating felony charge.

But if lawmakers thought a specific statutory provision would streamline the law, the early 2026 rulings from the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts prove otherwise. For practicing criminal lawyers, Section 69 BNS is rapidly becoming a drafting battleground, and the threshold for quashing these FIRs is shifting unpredictably.

The Allahabad Stance: A Distinct Offence with the Same Old Evidentiary Burden

In Kuldeep Verma v. State of U.P. (January 13, 2026), the Allahabad High Court rejected a quashing petition under the new procedural regime. The Court held that Section 69 BNS creates a standalone offence and that the allegations in the FIR disclosed prima facie facts warranting trial. However, the Court was careful to reiterate a foundational principle inherited from the Supreme Court’s IPC jurisprudence (such as the landmark Pramod Suryabhan Pawar case): mere relationship breakdown or the subsequent inability to fulfill a marriage promise does not automatically constitute criminal liability.

For the prosecution to succeed, there must be evidence of mens rea—a dishonest intent not to marry—from the very inception of the physical relationship. If the promise was genuine when made but frustrated by subsequent events, Section 69 should not apply. In theory, this protects consensual relationships that simply turn sour. In practice, however, the Delhi High Court has just thrown a massive wrench into this defense.

The "Kundli Mismatch" Conundrum: A Dangerous Precedent

On February 24, 2026, the Delhi High Court delivered a judgment that should make every defense counsel sit up and take notice. The Court ruled that refusing marriage after engaging in physical relations by citing a "kundli mismatch" (astrological incompatibility)—following repeated assurances of marriage—attracts liability under Section 69 BNS.

"When repeated assurances are given to secure consent for physical intimacy, the subsequent invocation of astrological hurdles cannot serve as an automatic shield against Section 69 BNS. The timing of the kundli mismatch defense raises a triable issue of deceitful intent."

We must call this out for what it is: a dangerous blurring of the lines between breach of promise and deceitful intent. By allowing a "kundli mismatch" to serve as prima facie evidence of deceit, the Delhi High Court is placing an impossible burden on the accused at the quashing stage. How does one documentary prove that an astrological consultation genuinely occurred after the physical relationship began, and that it constituted a supervening impossibility rather than a pre-planned exit strategy?

What This Means for Daily Practice

For lawyers practicing on the criminal side, these twin judgments radically alter drafting and litigation strategies under the BNSS:

• For Complainants' Counsel: Drafting the FIR or Section 175(3) BNSS complaint (formerly 156(3) CrPC) requires meticulous wording. You can no longer just state that the accused refused to marry. You must explicitly plead that the "excuse" (be it kundli, parental refusal, or caste differences) was a known factor to the accused before the physical relationship commenced, thereby establishing deceitful intent from day one.
• For Defense Counsel: Relying on Section 528 BNSS (the equivalent of 482 CrPC) to quash false promise cases just got much harder. You cannot simply argue that "kundli mismatch" or "parental objection" negates mens rea. You must aggressively collate electronic evidence—WhatsApp chats, location data of meetings with parents, or receipts of wedding planning—to prove that the accused took genuine, active steps toward marriage before the relationship broke down.

The Broader Trend: Courts Struggling with Modern Relationships

It is deeply ironic that while the Supreme Court is trying to protect consensual relationships in other areas—such as introducing a conceptual 'Romeo-Juliet clause' to curb the misuse of the POCSO Act in cases of underage romance—the High Courts are weaponizing Section 69 BNS against adult consensual relationships that fail to culminate in marriage.

The insertion of Section 69 BNS was meant to decouple "false promise of marriage" from the stigma and draconian sentencing of "rape." But without clear Supreme Court guidelines on what constitutes "deceitful means" under the new Sanhita, Section 69 is becoming a tool to criminalize broken hearts. Until the Apex Court settles the "kundli" debate, defense lawyers must prepare for grueling trials, as High Courts are increasingly reluctant to nip these cases in the bud.