The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings against an individual accused of rape, observing that where the complainant is already married, a physical relationship cannot be said to have been induced by a “deception” in the form of a promise to marry.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that had refused to quash the FIR. The Court held that the relationship was “obviously and admittedly consensual” and that the principles laid down in the case of Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and Anr (2025) were squarely applicable.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Ankit Tomar, was accused under Section 376(2)(n) (rape on the same woman repeatedly) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The First Information Report (FIR No. 127) was registered on March 28, 2024, at Police Station Kheripul, Faridabad.
The complainant, who was the in-charge of a massage parlour, alleged that the appellant visited the parlour as a customer and established a physical relationship with her. She claimed the relationship continued from August 2023 until March 2024 because the appellant had promised to marry her. However, the appellant married another woman on March 12, 2024. Following this, the complainant alleged a quarrel took place on March 15, 2024, after she informed him of her pregnancy.
Arguments Presented
The appellant moved the High Court seeking to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). He contended that the relationship was entirely consensual. His specific defense was that the complainant was already married and had two children, making a promise of marriage impossible to fulfill and therefore not a plausible basis for “deception.”
The State of Haryana, represented by Senior AAG Alok Sangwan, opposed the quashing, stating that the trial had not yet commenced. The State further pointed out that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report regarding the DNA profile of the child (who is now deceased) was still pending.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined the facts of the case in light of the judgment in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra. In that precedent, the Court had identified four grounds for quashing a complaint:
- Consent on the part of the complainant.
- Frequent interaction and engagement in a physical relationship.
- Lack of inducement, misrepresentation, coercion, or threat.
- The impossibility of deception when the complainant is already married.
Applying these to the present case, the Bench observed:
“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 that the relationship commenced and continued within the premises of the massage parlour where the complainant was in charge. It also highlighted the timeline: the appellant married on March 12, the alleged quarrel happened on March 15, and the FIR was filed shortly thereafter.
Regarding the pending FSL report, the Court stated:
“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.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that there was no reason to sustain the High Court’s order. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the criminal proceedings in FIR No. 127 dated March 28, 2024, and directed that no further proceedings be held. The bail bonds executed by the appellant were also ordered to be cancelled.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ankit Tomar v. State of Haryana
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. [To be assigned] of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 18044 of 2025)
- Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
- Date: February 26, 2026
