Gujarat HC quashes FIR against man accused of deceit after ending relationship with woman

Observing that a prolonged consensual relationship cannot simply be treated as one based entirely on a false promise of marriage, the Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR filed after a nearly two-year relationship between a man and a woman ended.

Justice MR Mengdey of the Gujarat High Court allowed a plea filed by a man from Kutch, seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita for 'sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means' and the criminal case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gandhidham.

According to the FIR, the complainant, a 37-year-old widow at the time when the case was registered, alleged that she had been in a relationship with the applicant between June 2023 and April 2025, during which the man had promised to marry her, telling her he would live with her even if their families objected.

The FIR further stated that the two would meet when the woman took her son with special needs to a hospital in the district. The woman also stated that they had, subsequently, travelled together and stayed in several guest houses, and that a ceremony for "tying mangalsutra" had also been held.

She had approached the police after the man refused to marry her. Appearing for the applicant, advocate Jigneshkumar Nayak argued that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was lodged only because the proposed marriage had not materialised.

He submitted that it was the complainant who had gone to the applicant's house upon her return from Dubai and created a disturbance, prompting his father to approach the police, after which the FIR from the side of the woman also followed.

Relying on two Supreme Court rulings, Nayak submitted that "a soured relationship does not automatically translate into intercourse by deceit". The state, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Krina Calla, opposed the plea, contending that the applicant was already married when the relationship began and was therefore aware he could not marry the complainant, yet went ahead and established physical relations with her on a false promise, rendering her consent invalid in law.

Advocate Mittal Patel, appearing for the complainant, also opposed the plea, telling the court that investigators had gathered guest house registers showing the applicant had taken the complainant to various locations "under the garb of marriage".

Examining the FIR itself, the court noted that the complainant had "categorically stated that there was love affair between herself and the applicant," and that she had "consented for physical relations with the present applicant after being promised for marriage".

The court observed that the couple had "visited several places together and also stayed together at several guest houses." Leaning on the Supreme Court's reasoning in a precedent, the HC cited the observation to state: "In a situation where the woman knowingly maintains the physical relationship for a prolonged period, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of alleged promise made by the accused to marry her." The court further recorded the apex court's finding that "even if it is assumed that a false promise of marriage was made to the complainant initially by the accused, the fact that the relationship continued for… long years would render the plea of the complainant that her consent for all these years was under misconception of the fact that the accused would marry her implausible." Considering the submissions of the applicant, the HC held that the application "deserves consideration" and allowed it, quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising from it.

Aditi Raja is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, stationed in Vadodara, Gujarat, with over 20 years in the field. She has been reporting from the region of Central Gujarat and Narmada district for this newspaper since 2013, which establishes her as a highly Authoritative and Trustworthy source on regional politics, administration, and critical socio-economic and environmental issues.

Expertise: Core Authority & Specialization: Her reporting is characterized by a comprehensive grasp of the complex factors shaping Central Gujarat, which comprises a vast tribal population, including: Politics and Administration: In-depth analysis of dynamics within factions of political parties and how it affects the affairs in the region, visits of national leaders making prominent statements, and government policy decisions impacting the population on ground.

Crucial Regional Projects: She consistently reports on the socio-economic and political impact of infrastructure projects in the region, especially the Statue of Unity, the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail bullet train project as well as the National Highway infrastructure.

Social Justice and Human Rights: Her reporting offers deep coverage of sensitive human-interest topics, including gender, crime, and tribal issues. Her reports cover legal proceedings from various district courts as well as the Gujarat High Court (e.g., the Bilkis Bano case remission, POCSO court orders, Public Interest Litigations), the plight of tribal communities, and broader social conflicts (e.g., Kheda flogging case).

Local Impact & Disaster Reporting: Excels in documenting the immediate impact of events on communities, such as the political and civic fallout of the Vadodara floods, the subsequent public anger, and the long-delayed river redevelopment projects, Harni Boat Tragedy, Air India crash, bringing out a blend of stories from the investigations as well as human emotions.

Special Interest Beat: She tracks incidents concerning Non-Resident Gujaratis (NRIs) including crime and legal battles abroad, issues of illegal immigration and deportations, as well as social events connecting the local Gujarati experience to the global diaspora.

... Read More