Long Consensual Relationship Is Not Automatically Rape: Bombay High Court Quashes False Promise To Marry Case Against Panvel Municipal Chief
Curated by NEWS DESK
Editorial DeskMAHARASHTRA: The Bombay High Court has quashed a rape FIR against Panvel Municipal Commissioner Bharat Rathod, holding that a long-term physical relationship cannot automatically be treated as rape merely because the woman alleges a false promise of marriage.
Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar, sitting at the Aurangabad Bench, observed that the "essential ingredients of the offence of rape on the ground of false promise of marriage are not made out" and continuing the criminal trial would be "nothing short of an abuse of the process of the court".
The Court passed its order on 29 October 2026, quashing the FIR registered on 27 July 2025 at Mukundwadi Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, along with the consequential criminal proceedings.
The FIR invoked Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 IPC. A charge-sheet was subsequently filed on 11 September 2025.
The complainant, aged around 39 when she filed the FIR, came into contact with Rathod in 2015 when he was working as a district administration officer in the Nagar Vikas Department.
She alleged that Rathod established physical relations with her between 2016 and 2024 after promising marriage. She also accused him of unnatural intercourse, forcing her to undergo an abortion in 2016 and giving her pills that allegedly caused subsequent miscarriages.
The woman further alleged that Rathod's relatives threatened and assaulted her in 2023.
During the hearing, Advocate Vijay Latange, appearing for Rathod, argued that their relationship was consensual. He submitted that the couple had jointly purchased a flat and had been living together as husband and wife since 2016.
After examining the circumstances, the High Court observed:
"A prolonged relationship cannot be presumed to have been founded solely on a promise of marriage"
The Court explained that a prolonged physical relationship, without evidence showing that consent was obtained solely through a false marriage promise, cannot automatically establish rape.
Justice Ghodeswar further observed:
"Merely because a woman knowingly maintains a physical relationship with a person for a prolonged period, it cannot be presumed that such relationship was solely on account of an alleged promise."
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's 20 January 2025 ruling in Prithvirajan v. State, which clarified that a false promise of marriage may attract rape charges when the promise was dishonest from the beginning, made to obtain consent, and directly influenced the woman's decision to enter the sexual relationship.
The Court noted that even if a marriage promise had initially been made, the relationship continued for a "considerably long period". This was relevant while examining whether the woman's consent throughout the relationship was based on a misconception of fact.
Read Also:- False Rape Allegations In India – Legal Remedies For Men
The material also showed that she "continued to maintain a prolonged association and physical relationship" with Rathod.
Finding insufficient material to establish the necessary ingredients of rape based on a false promise of marriage, the Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings against Rathod.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS
| Law / Section | What It Means | Application In This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 376 IPC | Punishment for rape. | Invoked on allegations of sexual relations based on a false marriage promise. |
| Section 376(2)(n) IPC | Punishment for committing rape repeatedly against the same woman. | Invoked because the alleged acts continued over several years. |
| Section 377 IPC | Punishment for specified unnatural sexual offences under the former IPC. | Invoked following allegations of unnatural intercourse. |
| Section 504 IPC | Intentional insult intended or likely to provoke a breach of peace. | Included in the FIR. |
| Section 506 IPC | Punishment for criminal intimidation. | Included in connection with the allegations of threats. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Bharat Rathod v. State of Maharashtra |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Aurangabad Bench |
| Judge | Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar |
| Order Date | 29 October 2026 |
| Applicant's Counsel | Advocate Vijay Latange |
| Police Station | Mukundwadi, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar |
| Decision | Rape FIR and consequential proceedings quashed |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Long Relationship Is Not Rape: Years of consensual intimacy cannot automatically establish rape.
- Failed Marriage Promise Is Not a Crime: A breakup alone does not prove a false promise of marriage.
- Consent Cannot Be Ignored: Rape allegations require proof that consent was obtained through deception.
- Men Deserve Protection From Unjust Prosecution: Criminal proceedings cannot continue without the essential ingredients of an offence.
- Rape FIR Quashed: The Bombay High Court ruled that the allegations did not justify continuing criminal proceedings against the man.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are moderated before publication.