Archive · 10 Sep 2026
Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR Over Failed Marriage Promise
A woman and a man were in a relationship for almost two years.
She said he promised to marry her but later refused.
She then filed a police complaint accusing him of using marriage as a deceitful promise.
The man said their relationship was consensual and that the complaint followed a failed relationship.
The state argued that he already had a wife and knew he could not marry the woman.
The Gujarat High Court examined the relationship described in the complaint.
It said the long relationship, travel together, and stays together made it difficult to conclude that all consent came only from a marriage promise.
The court therefore cancelled the FIR and the related criminal case.
The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR against a Kutch man accused of obtaining sexual relations through a false promise of marriage.
The woman alleged that she and the man were in a relationship from June 2023 to April 2025 and that he had promised to marry her.
The couple reportedly travelled together, stayed at guest houses, and held a ceremony involving the tying of a mangalsutra.
The state and the complainant argued that the man was already married and had maintained the relationship under the false pretext of marriage.
The court held that a prolonged consensual relationship could not automatically be treated as intercourse based entirely on a false promise of marriage.
- Who
- A man from Kutch, the complainant, the Gujarat High Court, the state, and the complainant’s lawyers.
- What
- The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR and related criminal proceedings alleging sexual intercourse through deceitful means and a false promise of marriage.
- When
- The alleged relationship lasted from June 2023 to April 2025; the court’s ruling followed the filing of the FIR after the relationship ended.
- Where
- The case was heard by the Gujarat High Court and involved events in Kutch and around Gandhidham, Gujarat.
- Why
- The court found that the prolonged relationship and the facts recorded in the FIR did not establish that the woman’s consent was entirely based on a false marriage promise.
Man’s Position
State and Complainant’s Position
Nature of the relationship
Man’s Position
The man argued that the relationship was consensual and that the criminal case was filed because the proposed marriage did not take place.
State and Complainant’s Position
The state and complainant argued that the relationship and physical relations were maintained under a false promise of marriage.
Knowledge of marital status
Man’s Position
The applicant sought dismissal of the case, relying on Supreme Court rulings that a relationship becoming sour does not automatically amount to intercourse by deceit.
State and Complainant’s Position
The state argued that the man was already married when the relationship began and therefore knew he could not marry the complainant, making her consent legally invalid.
Evidence of the relationship
Man’s Position
The court noted the complainant’s own description of a love affair, prolonged relationship, travel together, and stays at guest houses.
State and Complainant’s Position
The complainant’s lawyer said investigators had collected guest-house registers showing that the man took her to different locations under the pretext of marriage.
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
- Judge
- Justice MR Mengdey
- Relationship period
- June 2023 to April 2025
- Accusation
- Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Complainant
- A 37-year-old widow when the case was registered
- Outcome
- FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings were quashed
- Related court
- Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gandhidham