Safiya Malik

A division bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) and charge sheet against a U.S. citizen accused of rape based on an alleged false promise of marriage. The court found that the allegations, when viewed in their entirety, did not constitute an offense under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment stated, "A promise to marry can be considered false only if, at the time of making the promise, the accused had no intention to abide by it and made the promise solely to induce the complainant into a sexual relationship."

The petitioner, a 58-year-old U.S. citizen, and the complainant, a 44-year-old Canadian resident, connected through a dating application in November 2022. The complainant alleged that the petitioner assured her of marriage, leading to a sexual relationship. The primary allegation in the FIR was that on November 24, 2022, in Thane, the petitioner had forcible sexual intercourse with the complainant on the pretext of marriage.

The complainant initially approached the Jersey City Police Department in the U.S. on February 21, 2024, alleging that the petitioner engaged in sexual activity with her without protection, based on a promise of marriage. However, the U.S. authorities closed the complaint on March 19, 2024, citing insufficient evidence.

On June 25, 2024, the complainant lodged an online complaint with the Kapurbawadi Police Station, Thane, making similar allegations. This complaint led to FIR No. 709 of 2024, registered on August 16, 2024, under Section 376 of IPC.

The petitioner, who had traveled between India, Canada, and the U.S., challenged the FIR and charge sheet before the Bombay High Court, stating that the allegations lacked legal merit. The petition cited the prolonged nature of the relationship, multiple consensual encounters after the alleged offense, and the complainant’s own legal marital status at the time of the incident as factors relevant to the case.

The petitioner submitted email correspondences, messages, and records of previous complaints filed by the complainant. The court noted that the complainant and petitioner had multiple consensual sexual encounters between January 2023 and October 2023, across the U.S. and Canada. The bench stated, "The complainant’s admission that she continued to have a sexual relationship with the petitioner even after the alleged incident in November 2022 raises serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations."

The court observed that the complainant was legally married at the time of the alleged incident and obtained a divorce only on January 11, 2024. It stated, "The complainant could not have consented to sexual relations purely based on a promise of marriage when her own marital status was unresolved."

The judgment referenced the complainant’s earlier communication with the U.S. authorities, where she stated that she was not interested in pursuing criminal charges but sought financial compensation. The court noted that criminal proceedings were initiated in India after the U.S. authorities closed the complaint, and stated, "The sequence of events and the complainant's prior communication indicate a belated attempt to give a criminal color to what was essentially a personal dispute."

The court examined the timeline of complaints and found inconsistencies. It noted that the complainant initially omitted any reference to the November 24, 2022, incident when filing complaints in the U.S. and only later added this allegation in her Indian complaint. It observed, "The absence of specific reference to the alleged incident in the initial complaints and its later inclusion raises concerns about the credibility of the allegations."

The judgment referenced Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2019), stating, "Mere failure to fulfill a promise, or a change in circumstances leading to the non-fulfillment of a promise, cannot constitute rape. The prosecution must establish that at the time of giving the promise, the accused had no intention of fulfilling it."

The court examined whether consent was obtained under a misconception of fact and whether it met the legal threshold under Section 375 IPC. The judgment stated, "To establish that consent was vitiated by a false promise of marriage, it must be shown that the accused never intended to honor the promise at the outset."

Based on these findings, the Bombay High Court stated, "The allegations in the FIR do not, on their face, constitute an offense under Section 376 of IPC. The petition is allowed, and FIR No. 709 of 2024, along with the subsequent charge sheet, is hereby quashed."

The court directed that records of the case be anonymized to protect the identities of both parties. It also observed that law enforcement should examine all relevant circumstances when assessing complaints of this nature, stating, "Delayed complaints, particularly in cases where the parties have maintained a prolonged relationship, require careful scrutiny before initiating criminal proceedings."

Case Title: Mr. A.B.C. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:9579-DB

Case Number: Writ Petition (ST) No. 21496 of 2024

Bench: Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain

[Read/Download order]