Biggest mistakes people make in Section 69 BNS cases
One of the biggest mistakes people make in Section 69 BNS cases is focusing only on the relationship.
Increasingly, investigators are following the money.
Recent reports from across the country reveal allegations that go beyond physical relationships.
In Surat, a woman alleged that she was cheated of ₹45 lakh under the promise of marriage.
Other recent cases involve allegations of blackmail, threats, and prolonged exploitation arising out of relationships that allegedly began with assurances of marriage.
These developments highlight an important litigation reality.
Modern Section 69 BNS cases are no longer confined to allegations of intimacy alone.
They frequently involve allegations of financial transactions, jewellery, loans, gifts, or economic dependence created during the course of the relationship.
This changes the evidentiary landscape considerably.
Courts and investigators are increasingly asking:
Who benefited from the relationship?
Did money change hands?
Were valuables transferred?
Were these voluntary gifts between partners?
Or were they allegedly induced through deception?
Bank statements, UPI records, loan documents, WhatsApp chats, and digital communications often become as important as the allegations themselves.
Because relationships leave emotional footprints.
But money leaves documentary footprints.
And documentary evidence is often easier to prove.
The legal principle, however, remains unchanged.
Section 69 BNS is concerned with consent obtained through deception.
And where allegations of financial exploitation accompany allegations of false promises, courts are increasingly examining not merely why the relationship ended.
But who gained from it while it lasted.
News sources:
[1] Times of India
[2] Live Hindustan
[3] News Hawks 24
[5] CG Crime
[6] SinghGhosh
Readers who wish to stay updated on developments related to Section 69 BNS may join our legal awareness community on WhatsApp by clicking here.
Disclaimer: This article is for legal awareness and general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every Section 69 BNS case is fact specific and each legal situation is unique. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking independent professional legal advice.