Archive · 11 Sep 2026
Supreme Court quashes FIR after mother blocks NRI marriage
A woman met a man online and later saw him in Vadodara.
They stayed in a hotel for two days and became sexually intimate.
She said he promised to marry her.
Later, he said his mother did not agree to the marriage.
The woman reported him, saying the promise had been false.
The Gujarat High Court allowed the case to continue.
The Supreme Court disagreed and said the complaint did not clearly show that he had lied from the beginning.
It cancelled the police case against him.
The court said a marriage promise made honestly but later not fulfilled is different from a dishonest promise made to obtain sex.
A Gujarat woman accused a Zambia-based NRI of sexual intimacy after a false marriage promise.
The woman said they met in Vadodara in February 2024 and stayed two days at a hotel.
She alleged he later refused marriage because his mother opposed the match.
The Gujarat High Court declined to quash the FIR, citing possible bad faith.
The Supreme Court found the complaint described a consensual relationship and did not establish deceit at the outset.
- Who
- A Zambia-based non-resident Indian man and a woman who met him through Facebook; the Supreme Court bench comprised Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
- What
- The Supreme Court quashed an FIR alleging that the man obtained sexual intimacy through a false promise to marry.
- When
- The parties connected in November 2022, met in February 2024, and the Supreme Court issued its order on September 7; the Gujarat High Court had ruled against him in May.
- Where
- The alleged relationship began with a meeting and hotel stay in Vadodara, Gujarat; the FIR was registered at Vadodara city.
- Why
- The Supreme Court said the complaint did not show that the marriage promise was dishonest from the beginning or that deceit induced the sexual relationship.
Complainant’s allegations
Man’s defense and Supreme Court reasoning
Nature of the marriage promise
Complainant’s allegations
The woman alleged that the man promised to marry her and later withdrew after his mother refused to approve the match.
Man’s defense and Supreme Court reasoning
The man disputed that the relationship was based on a false promise, and the Supreme Court said the later opposition did not prove dishonesty when the promise was made.
Meaning of the relationship
Complainant’s allegations
The complaint treated the sexual intimacy as resulting from the man’s promise to marry.
Man’s defense and Supreme Court reasoning
The Supreme Court read the complaint as describing a consensual relationship without a specific allegation that intercourse was permitted because of a dishonest promise.
Whether the FIR should continue
Complainant’s allegations
The Gujarat High Court said the alleged conduct could show a promise made with bad faith and refused to quash the case.
Man’s defense and Supreme Court reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the complaint did not disclose the required deceitful conduct and quashed the FIR.
- Law invoked
- Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which provides up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine for sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a false marriage promise.
- Online connection
- The woman said she connected with the man through Facebook in November 2022.
- First meeting
- The two met in person in Vadodara in February 2024.
- Marriage dispute
- The woman alleged the man promised marriage by December 2024, then refused in January 2025 because his mother objected.
- Gujarat High Court ruling
- The High Court refused to quash the FIR and said the mother’s opposition was not a bona fide explanation.
- Supreme Court ruling
- The court held that the complaint indicated a consensual relationship and did not disclose deceitful inducement.
- Additional defense submissions
- The man’s lawyer cited contact with the woman’s family, a Rs 40,000 transfer to her mother, and gifts worth about Rs 32,000.