High Court Quashes FIR in Alleged Rape Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Deception. The court found that the allegations did not constitute an offence as the relationship was consensual and there was no evidence of deception regarding the promise of marriage.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a Criminal Writ Petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was based on a complaint by Respondent No. 3, who alleged that the petitioner blackmailed her and forced her into a physical relationship under the pretext of marriage. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual and that the allegations were false and made with the intent to harass him. The court noted that Respondent No. 3 was married at the time of the relationship and had not initiated divorce proceedings. The court emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner misled Respondent No. 3 into the relationship or that her consent was obtained through deception. The court referred to precedents, including the case of Bhajan Lal, to highlight the necessity of establishing a prima facie case for the alleged offences. Ultimately, the court found that the allegations did not amount to an offence and quashed the FIR and charge-sheet, allowing the petition. The court also directed the payment of legal fees to the advocate representing Respondent No. 3 under the legal aid scheme.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Lack of prima facie case - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376(2)(n), 506 - The court found that the allegations did not constitute an offence as the relationship was consensual and there was no evidence of deception regarding the promise of marriage. The FIR and charge-sheet were quashed to prevent abuse of the legal process. Held that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not established (Paras 13-17).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the FIR and charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code should be quashed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the Criminal Writ Petition and quashed the FIR No. 163/2025 and Charge Sheet No. 13/2026, finding no prima facie case established for the alleged offences.

Law Points

  • Quashing of FIR
  • Consent in relationships
  • False promise of marriage
  • Abuse of legal process
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (10) 112

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2026

2026-10-21

ASHWIN D. BHOBE

2026:BHC-GOA:2144

Mr Sagar Dhargalkar, Ms Nilima Divkar, Ms Radhika Purohit, Mr S. Karpe, Ms S. Parulekar

NILESH RAJARAM JALMI

STATE OF GOA, THE POLICE INSPECTOR, Respondent No. 3

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petition seeking to quash FIR and charge-sheet.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR and charge-sheet.

Filing Reason

Allegations of rape and blackmail by Respondent No. 3.

Issues

Whether the FIR and charge-sheet should be quashed Whether the relationship was consensual or based on deception

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and allegations were false. Respondent No. 3 argued that the relationship was based on a promise of marriage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the allegations did not constitute an offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC as the relationship was consensual and there was no evidence of deception regarding the promise of marriage.

Judgment Excerpts

The allegations made in the FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence. The relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 was consensual and not one of lust.

Procedural History

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the court heard the matter with the consent of the parties.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code: 376(2)(n), 506
  • BNSS: 528
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Village Panchayat's Writ Petitions as Not Maintainable Against Orders of Additional Director of Panchayats Under Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 — Panchayat Cannot Challenge Appellate Orders Passed Under Section 66...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Election of Managing Committee of Society Under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Court Holds That Dispute Regarding Validity of Election Must Be Raised Before Co-operative Court Under Secti...