Successfully represented the accused, xyz, before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in SC No. 822/2025 arising out of FIR No. 421/2025 registered at P.S. Burari under Sections 69/209 BNS, wherein the accused was discharged from the offences alleged against him.
The prosecution case alleged that the accused had established physical relations with the prosecutrix on a promise of marriage. At the stage of charge, it was argued that the prosecution’s own material contained material contradictions regarding the sequence of the alleged physical relationship and the purported promise of marriage. Particular emphasis was placed on the differing versions contained in the complaint, the statement under Section 183 BNSS and the medical history recorded in the MLC.
Appearing for the accused, we contended that Section 69 BNS requires the alleged false promise to exist with dishonest intention at the inception and to be the direct cause of the consent. It was argued that the prosecution material did not establish this foundational requirement and that subsequent failure of a relationship could not retrospectively convert a consensual relationship into an offence under Section 69 BNS.
The Court, upon considering the material on record and the submissions advanced, found that the prosecution failed to disclose the requisite grave suspicion warranting framing of charges. The accused was accordingly discharged of the offences under Sections 69 and 209 BNS.