Yes, the High Court can quash an FIR in a rape on false promise of marriage case under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, and this remains one of the most actively and successfully exercised categories of quashing jurisdiction in Indian criminal law today, with High Courts across the country regularly applying well-established Supreme Court principles to correct FIRs that mischaracterize a failed relationship as rape. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sexual relations obtained through deceitful means or a false promise of marriage made without genuine intention of fulfilling it have been carved out as a distinct, specific offence under Section 69 BNS, separate from the graver offence of rape under Section 64 BNS, and this legislative restructuring has given High Courts a clearer statutory framework to apply when examining whether an FIR genuinely discloses criminal deceit or merely reflects a relationship that ended without marriage. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preserved the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process, and since 1 July 2024, this power flows from Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the direct successor provision.

The central analytical task the High Court undertakes in these matters, applying the well-established Bhajan Lal framework from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, is examining whether the allegations, even taken at their fullest face value, disclose the specific deceit that Section 69 BNS, and previously the combined reading of Section 375 with Section 90 IPC, actually requires. This is not a general inquiry into whether the relationship was consensual in the broadest sense, but a precise, narrow question: was the promise to marry false and deceptive from the very moment it was made, with the accused never genuinely intending to fulfil it, or was the promise made in good faith and simply overtaken by later circumstances that prevented the marriage from taking place? Only the former genuinely constitutes the offence; the latter, however painful or disappointing for the complainant, does not.

The Supreme Court's foundational authority on this distinction, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, established clearly that a bona fide promise that later fails is fundamentally different from a false promise designed to deceive, and this principle continues to guide every High Court examining a quashing petition in this category. Building on this, Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh confirmed that where the accused genuinely intended to marry the complainant at the time the promise was made, a subsequent failure to fulfil it, due to circumstances arising later, does not constitute the offence, and only a promise that was hollow from its inception can support a criminal charge. High Courts applying these principles routinely examine the complete relationship timeline placed before them — how the relationship began, its duration, the circumstances surrounding the promise, and what specifically caused the marriage not to take place — to determine which category the facts genuinely fall within.

The most authoritative and current guidance comes from the Supreme Court's judgment delivered on 7 September 2025, where the Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 69 BNS after finding that the complaint itself disclosed a consensual relationship rather than deceitful inducement, and specifically held that a refusal to marry due to family opposition — in that case, the accused's mother objecting to the match — does not, by itself, establish that the original promise was made deceitfully. This decision is particularly significant because family opposition to a marriage is an extremely common reason relationships fail to culminate in marriage in the Indian social context, and the Supreme Court's clear holding that such opposition does not automatically transform a genuine relationship into a criminal offence provides High Courts with strong, current authority to quash FIRs presenting this exact fact pattern, which is among the most frequently recurring scenarios in such matters.

High Courts have also applied the principle established in Rajnish Singh Soni v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court quashed an FIR involving a relationship that had continued consensually for fifteen years, holding that such a prolonged, ongoing relationship could not be attributed solely to a single false promise made at its inception. Where the High Court is presented with evidence of a relationship that continued over a substantial period, with the complainant's own conduct throughout that period reflecting genuine, ongoing consent, this duration itself becomes compelling evidence that the relationship was not built on deception, and High Courts have shown clear willingness to quash FIRs on precisely this basis.

The most structured and recent guidance for High Courts specifically evaluating quashing petitions in this category comes from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided by the Supreme Court on 2 September 2025, which laid down a specific, multi-step test for assessing whether such a complaint should be quashed, describing the continuation of a prosecution built on a mere breach of promise, rather than genuine deceit, as amounting to a "gross abuse of the process of law." This structured test gives High Courts, and the advocates appearing before them, a clearer analytical framework than existed previously, and petitions drafted with explicit reference to this test tend to receive more focused and favourable consideration.

Where the complainant was already married at the time of the alleged relationship, High Courts additionally apply the principle from Abhishek Arjariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, holding that her consent cannot be characterised as vitiated by a mistaken belief in a promise of marriage, since she could not genuinely have believed a lawful marriage was contemplated while her existing marriage subsisted, and this specific factual circumstance provides an additional, independent ground for quashing where applicable. If you are evaluating whether your specific relationship timeline and circumstances fit these well-established categories, speaking with our legal experts at Aapka Legal Advice allows for a detailed assessment against this current, actively developing body of precedent.

Protective steps remain relevant while such a petition is pending before the High Court, particularly where the FIR has initially been registered citing the graver rape provisions under Section 64 BNS before the correct legal characterization under Section 69 BNS is established, and anticipatory bail under the applicable BNSS provision should be pursued wherever there is genuine apprehension of arrest while the quashing petition proceeds.

Timing considerations in these matters differ somewhat from the general rape quashing landscape. While filing early, before a charge sheet solidifies the prosecution's initial framing, remains generally advisable, this specific category has seen the Supreme Court continue to actively develop and clarify the governing principles well into 2025 and 2026, and High Courts have shown genuine willingness to apply this evolving framework even at later procedural stages, provided the relationship timeline and supporting evidence are presented clearly and comprehensively.

Once such an FIR is quashed, further recourse for malicious prosecution and defamation remains available in principle where the allegations were knowingly false, though this route requires careful, honest evaluation of the complete facts before being pursued, as with any sensitive matter of this nature.

Given how actively and recently this area of law has developed, with the Supreme Court issuing multiple clarifying judgments within just the past year, guidance that remains genuinely current with this fast-moving jurisprudence is essential to building a persuasive petition. A panel of retired High Court judges is available for consultation to assess your specific relationship timeline against this developing framework, working alongside senior criminal lawyers who stay closely current with Section 69 BNS litigation specifically, and you can review the profiles of Top Criminal Lawyers in India | Aapka Legal Advice to find counsel with genuinely current, demonstrated experience in this specific and actively developing category of criminal law.

In summary, the High Court can quash an FIR in a rape on false promise of marriage case under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, drawing on the well-established distinction between a false promise made with no intention of fulfilment from the outset and a genuine promise later overtaken by circumstances, as clarified through Deepak Gulati, Anurag Soni, and the Supreme Court's significant 2025 decisions. If you are facing such an allegation, the team at Aapka Legal Advice can help you build a strong Section 528 BNSS petition grounded in this genuinely current and well-developed body of law.