The Supreme Court has quashed the proceedings arising out of an FIR registered against a man accused of engaging in physical relationship on an alleged false promise of marriage. The Apex Court held that the woman’s consent demolished her case that there was rape on such promise.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the accused whose quashing application was rejected.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “We are of the opinion that there is no reason to wait for the FSL report since even if the child, who passed away, is found to be of the appellant, the consent demolishes the case of the complainant that there was rape on the promise of marriage. We hence find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the High Court.”

Advocate Romil Pathak represented the Appellant, while Senior Additional Advocate General Alok Sangwan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The complainant was working in a Massage Parlour and was also in charge of the same. The appellant was alleged to have come to the Parlour as a customer and then had a physical relationship with her inside the premises of the Parlour. It was stated that the relationship continued for some time, and the complainant permitted the relationship only because the appellant had promised to marry her. It was also alleged that despite the promise made to the complainant, the appellant married another girl, and hence the complaint was filed.

The appellant accused was arrested and then released on bail in a case registered under Section 376 (2)(n) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. His application to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was rejected on the ground that there was an allegation of physical relationship on false pretext of marriage and impregnation. It was the appellant’s case that the complainant was married with two children, and there was no reason for the appellant to extend a promise of marriage, which in any event would not have been possible.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and Anr (2025) wherein it was found that the complainant, being married and having a child of four years, there was no possibility of a deception having been employed in the form of a promise to marry, for engaging in a physical relationship.

“The reading of the FIR indicates that the dictum is squarely applicable. The complainant was employed in a massage parlour and was also entrusted with the running of the same”, it stated while also adding, “The relationship is said to have commenced in August 2023 and is said to have continued till March 2024; obviously and admittedly consensual.”

The Bench also took note of the fact that the complainant is married and a mother of two children, as the FIS itself indicated. There was no allegation that she was divorced from her husband or even separated from him. “We are convinced that as in the cited decision, there was a consensual relationship, neither inducement nor threat and no possibility of a deception luring the complainant into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage”, it stated.

Thus, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, the Bench quashed the criminal proceedings. “The bail bonds executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Ankit Tomar v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 262)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Romil Pathak, Rashmi Singh, Amit Kumar, Anil Saini, C. Aravind, Neha Pathak, Prashant Chaturvedi, Bharat Shandilia, AOR Jagrati Singh

Respondent: Senior Additional Advocate General Alok Sangwan, AOR Akshay Amritanshu, Advocates Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Shikhar Narwal, Divya Sharma, Harsh Mehla, Sarthak Srivastava, Mayur Goyal, Vaibhav Yadav

Click here to read/download Order



Justice Sanjay KumarJustice Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.