Supreme Court Quashes FIR Where Court Found Consensual Relationship and No Deception by Promise to Marry

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by an accused charged under Section 376(2)(n) and Section 506 IPC against a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that had denied his application to quash the FIR. The appellant sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on this Court's decision in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2025 CaseBase(SC) 734.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and quashed the criminal proceedings in FIR No.127 dated 28.03.2024 registered at Police Station Kheripul, District Faridabad. The Court observed that the allegations, taken at their highest, disclosed a consensual relationship and that there was "no possibility of a deception luring the complainant into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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. The appellant had visited the parlour as a customer and it was within the premises of the parlour, where the complainant was in charge, the couple had physical relationship, even as per the allegation in the FIS. The relationship is said to have commenced in August 2023 and is said to have continued till March 2024; obviously and admittedly consensual. It is also the case of the prosecutrix that on 15.03.2024, she informed the appellant about her pregnancy and then he quarrelled with her. Admittedly the marriage of the appellant took place on 12.03.2024 after which the FIR was registered alleging a quarrel on 15.03.2024, three days after the marriage. The complainant is married and a mother of two children, as the FIS itself indicates. There is 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.”

The Court further noted, “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.” The Court directed that “there shall be no further proceedings on the said FIR” and ordered that the bail bonds executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.

Background

The dispute arose from an FIR alleging that the appellant engaged in a physical relationship with the complainant on the false pretext of marriage, resulting in pregnancy and the birth of a child who later died. The complainant worked at and was in charge of a massage parlour; the appellant allegedly visited as a customer and the relationship was said to have continued from August 2023 to March 2024. The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual and that he had married another woman on 12.03.2024 before the complaint was lodged. The High Court had refused to quash the FIR, distinguishing the present facts from Amol Bhagwan Nehul on the basis of alleged impregnation and promise of marriage. The State informed the Court that trial had not commenced and that the Forensic Science Laboratory report on DNA profiling was pending; it also noted the child was deceased and the complainant was now separated from her husband.

Applying the principles in Amol Bhagwan Nehul 2025 CaseBase(SC) 734., this Court found the facts analogous and concluded that the allegations, even if accepted, demonstrated consent and no inducement, misrepresentation, coercion or threat. The Court held that waiting for the FSL report was unnecessary because a finding that the appellant was the father would not negate the consensual nature of the relationship. The appeal succeeded; the High Court order was set aside, the FIR was quashed, and the Court disposed of pending applications.

Case Details:
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 262
Case Title: Ankit Tomar v. State of Haryana
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sh. Romil Pathak, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Sh. Alok Sangwan, Senior AAG

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 242