Consensual Relationship Later Deteriorated: Bombay High Court Quashes Rape Case On False Promise Of Marriage
The Bombay High Court was considering a Petition filed by the petitioner seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 69, 79, 351(2), and 352 of the BNS, along with Sections 376(2)(n) & 377 of the IPC and Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
While noting that the complainant, being married, was not eligible to marry the accused as of the date when the alleged instances of rape were said to have occurred, the Bombay High Court has quashed a false promise of marriage case registered against a man.
The High Court stated that it was a consensual relationship that later deteriorated.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 69, 79, 351(2), and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with Sections 376(2)(n) & 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Single Bench of Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe held, “Respondent No. 2, being married, was not eligible to marry the Petitioner as of the date when the alleged instances of rape, purportedly committed by the Petitioner under the false pretext of marriage, are said to have occurred. There is no material to suggest that the Petitioner’s intentions were initially to deceive Respondent No. 2 and persuade her to have a physical relationship. The facts of this case clearly indicate a consensual relationship that later deteriorated. The ingredients of the offence under Section 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 / Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC are not established.”
Advocate Faiz Merchant represented the Petitioner, while Addl. Public Prosecutor Sukanta Karmakar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was alleged that the second respondent (complainant), a 24-year-old married woman, became acquainted with the Petitioner, aged 26, in Delhi while shopping at a garment exhibition. During their conversation, they got to know each other and exchanged mobile numbers. After their friendship developed, they entered into a physical relationship. The complainant alleged that after holidaying in Lonavala and returning to Mumbai, they booked a room in Khar, where they consumed alcohol. She alleged that a pill was added to her drink, causing her to fall asleep, and the Petitioner then engaged in physical relations with her. She also alleged that under the false pretext of marriage, the Petitioner engaged in physical relations with her at different places on multiple occasions.
It was further stated in the complaint that the families of both the Petitioner and the complainant discussed their wedding, and then performed the Roka ceremony as well as booked a pre-wedding photoshoot in Dubai. The complainant claimed that the Petitioner had refused to marry her because she was previously married.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the allegations made in the impugned FIR, the Bench noted that the same did not indicate that the complainant’s consent was obtained under duress or solely on the promise of marriage.
“The material on record does not suggest that the Petitioner induced or misled Respondent No. 2 into giving consent to a sexual relationship or that the Respondent No. 2 was persuaded by the Petitioner to have physical relations, and this is not established, even prima facie”, it added.
Thus, allowing the Criminal Application, the Bench quashed the impugned FIR.
Cause Title: Raghav Rajesh Aggarwal v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:11319-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Faiz Merchant, Faisal Shaikh, Uma Nemlekar, Bhavesh Ameta, Omkar Shah, Jenifer Solomon
Respondent: APP Sukanta Karmakar, Advocates Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, Mohammad Farid