The Supreme Court of India, in a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman accused of conniving with her son in an alleged case of sexual exploitation under the pretext of a false promise to marry. The apex court allowed the appeal against the criminal proceedings, holding that an allegation of being misled by a promise of marriage cannot be accepted when the complainant is already married and estranged from her husband without any record of a divorce, and emphasizing that the mother of the accused cannot be roped into such allegations.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Ilaben, approached the Supreme Court under an application filed originally under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against her.
The case originated from First Information Report (FIR) No. 11188009240223 of 2024, registered on April 19, 2024, at Modasa Town Police Station in District Aravalli. The second respondent (complainant) alleged that she was in a relationship with the appellant’s son, who obtained sexual favours from her based on a promise to marry. She also alleged that the appellant’s son appropriated large amounts of money through the sale of her car and claimed that the appellant had actively connived with her son in making the promise of marriage.
Following the investigation, a chargesheet running to over 200 pages (Chargesheet No. 34/2024 dated June 18, 2024) was filed, leading to Special (Atro) Case No. 14 of 2024 before the Special Court, Modasa.
Arguments of the Parties
The Supreme Court heard submissions from Advocate on Record (AoR) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta appearing on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AoR for the State of Gujarat, and Mr. Sidharth Mittal, AoR, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae by court order dated February 27, 2026, to represent the second respondent.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upon reviewing the First Information Statement (FIS), the bench observed that the statement indicates a consensual relationship between the complainant and the appellant’s son, interspersed with allegations of forced physical relationship under the promise of marriage. The FIS noted that at one point while travelling together, after the appellant’s son had alighted near a Court to attend a proceeding, the second respondent rejected his proposal for marriage, only to agree later when he promised to reform himself.
Examining the merits of the allegations, the Court noted:
A reading of the FIS does not compel us to find any of the allegations giving rise to any criminal culpability.
Accusations are made blandly without any substantiation and the chargesheet seems to be running to almost more than 200 pages, as is revealed from Annexure P5.
The bench also reviewed translated copies of the chat conversations between the complainant and the appellant’s son produced by the appellant. The Court remarked that the chats speak volumes regarding the behavior of the second respondent, adding:
We would not say anything more and suffice it to observe that the entire allegations, according to us, inspires no confidence.
Addressing the core allegation of a false promise to marry, the Court highlighted that the statement of the complainant’s father contained in the chargesheet established that the second respondent was married and estranged from her husband, with no record of a divorce having been obtained. The Court observed:
There is nothing stated as to a divorce having been obtained, in which case the allegation of second respondent having been led by a promise of marriage cannot at all be believed.
Furthermore, with respect to the criminal liability sought to be attached to the mother of the main accused, the Court held:
Be that as it may, the appellant who is the mother of the person against whom the second respondent makes allegations cannot definitely be roped in.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant in Special (Atro) Case No. 14 of 2024 before the Special Court, Modasa.
Concluding the judgment, the Court stated:
We find absolutely no reason to continue the proceedings in Special (Atro) Case No.14 of 2024 pending before the Special Court, Modasa arising from chargesheet No.34/2024 dated 18.06.2024 pursuant to FIR No.11188009240223 of 2024 registered at Modasa Town Police Station, District Aravalli dated 19.04.2024. The criminal proceedings shall stand quashed as against the appellant. If the accused is in prison, she shall be released forthwith and if she is on bail, her bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Case Details
Case Title: Ilaben v. The State of Gujarat and Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3893 of 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: August 17, 2026
