1. Accused sought quashing of criminal proceedings alleging rape on the pretext of marriage, while maintaining the relationship was consensual and initiated without deception. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 283
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Ankit Tomar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 18044 of 2025)
Decided On : 26-02-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Romil Pathak, Adv. Mrs. Rashmi Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anil Saini, Adv. Mr. C.aravind, Adv. Mrs. Neha Pathak, Adv. Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Bharat Shandilia, Adv. Ms. Jagrati Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv. Ms. Divya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harsh Mehla, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Romil Pathak, Adv. Mrs. Rashmi Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anil Saini, Adv. Mr. C.aravind, Adv. Mrs. Neha Pathak, Adv. Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Bharat Shandilia, Adv. Ms. Jagrati Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv. Ms. Divya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harsh Mehla, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv.
Important Points
Consent in a sexual relationship negates allegations of rape when no coercion or misrepresentation is found, even in instances of promises of marriage.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 - Allegation of physical relationship on false pretext of marriage and impregnation - High Court rejected quashing of FIR, citing distinction on facts - Appeal allowed, and FIR quashed based on lack of inducement or coercion and established consent by complainant. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Consent in Criminal Law - The court cited precedents indicating that a consensual relationship undermines allegations of rape, especially where the complainant had the capacity to consent despite the promise of marriage. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of rape under false pretenses, claiming a relationship started in August 2023, culminating in the complainant's pregnancy, which was revealed after the appellant's marriage on 12.03.2024. (Paras 5-8)
Findings of Court:
Court found the relationship to be consensual, dismissing claims of deception or coercion, stating that even if the child was his, consent nullifies the allegation of rape. (Paras 9-10)
Issues: Whether there was consent between the parties and validity of the promise to marry as a basis for the allegations. (Paras 6-9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that consent existed, negating the claim of rape based on misrepresentation about marriage due to the complainant’s own circumstances. (Paras 7-9)
Result: FIR quashed and no further proceedings on the matter.
(B) Consent in Criminal Law - The court cited precedents indicating that a consensual relationship undermines allegations of rape, especially where the complainant had the capacity to consent despite the promise of marriage. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of rape under false pretenses, claiming a relationship started in August 2023, culminating in the complainant's pregnancy, which was revealed after the appellant's marriage on 12.03.2024. (Paras 5-8)
Findings of Court:
Court found the relationship to be consensual, dismissing claims of deception or coercion, stating that even if the child was his, consent nullifies the allegation of rape. (Paras 9-10)
Issues: Whether there was consent between the parties and validity of the promise to marry as a basis for the allegations. (Paras 6-9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that consent existed, negating the claim of rape based on misrepresentation about marriage due to the complainant’s own circumstances. (Paras 7-9)
Result: FIR quashed and no further proceedings on the matter.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The accused contended the relationship was consensual, while the State argued for trial continuation pending forensic evidence regarding paternity and disputed the absence of inducement. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
3. The court observed that the relationship was admitted to be consensual, occurred between consenting adults, and lacked elements of inducement, coercion, or deception necessary for criminal prosecution. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 )
4. A consensual physical relationship between adults, lacking evidence of inducement, coercion, or initial deceptive promises of marriage, does not constitute the offense of rape. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. The court set aside the High Court order and quashed the criminal proceedings originating from the disputed FIR. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
6. Can a criminal complaint under the offence of rape be quashed when the relationship is admitted to be consensual?
Yes. When the evidence or FIR allegations indicate a consensual relationship between adults without any element of inducement, coercion, or deceit, the continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the court process and is liable to be quashed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
7. Is pending forensic evidence a ground to refuse the quashing of criminal proceeding in a rape case?
No. If the foundational element of the offense—lack of consent—is negated by facts and circumstances, the court is not required to wait for forensic reports, such as DNA profiles, as they do not override the effect of a valid, consensual relationship. (Para 8 , 9 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, accused under Section 376 (2)(n) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code [For brevity ‘the IPC ’], was arrested and then released on bail by order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court (Annexure P3). Later, he filed an application to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 relying on the decision in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and Anr , 2025 SCC Online SC 1230. By the impugned order, the High Court rejected the same finding distinction on facts insofar as in the present case there was allegation of physical relationship on false pretext of marriage and impregnation.
3. We heard Sh. Romil Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sh. Alok Sangwan, Senior AAG appearing for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State would contend that the trial has not commenced and the Forensic Science Laboratory report of the DNA profile test conducted of the child, born out of the relationship, is pending. It is also pointed out that the child is no more, and the complainant is now separated from her husband.
5. We have gone through the FIR in the above case, wherein the complainant was working in a Massage Parlour and was also in-charge of the same; having been so entrusted by the owner. The appellant is alleged to have come to the Parlour as a customer and then had a physical relationship with her. It is stated that the relationship continued for some time and the complainant permitted the relationship only because the appellant had promised to marry her. It is also alleged that despite the promise made to the complainant, the appellant married another girl and hence the said complaint is filed.
6. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant had consensual relationship with the complainant and later married another on 12.03.2024 when the complaint was raised. It is the specific defence that the complainant was married and had two children and there was no reason for the appellant to extend a promise of marriage, which in any event would not have been possible.
7. We are unable to find any distinction insofar as the application of the principles declared in Amol Bhagwan Nehul. Looking at the facts of the said case, this Court was persuaded to quash the complaint on four grounds. Firstly, the Court noticed that even if the allegations in the FIR are true and correct, there appears to be consent on the part of the complainant. Especially when she admits that they fell in love and interacted frequently and engaged in a physical relationship. Then, it was noticed that the consent as coming out from the facts and circumstances cannot be said to be either on ‘inducement or misrepresentation’ or on the basis of a ‘coercion or threat of injury’. Lastly, it was found that the complainant being married and having a child of four years, there is no possibility of a deception having been employed in the form of a promise to marry, for engaging in physical relationship.
8. The reading of the FIR indicates that the dictum is squarely applicable. The complainant was employed in a massage parlour and was also entrusted with the running of the same. The appellant had visited the parlour as a customer and it was within the premises of the parlour, where the complainant was in charge, the couple had physical relationship, even as per the allegation in the FIS. The relationship is said to have commenced in August 2023 and is said to have continued till March 2024; obviously and admittedly consensual. It is also the case of the prosecutrix that on 15.03.2024, she informed the appellant about her pregnancy and then he quarrelled with her. Admittedly the marriage of the appellant took place on 12.03.2024 after which the FIR was registered alleging a quarrel on 15.03.2024, three days after the marriage. The complainant is married and a mother of two children, as the FIS itself indicates. There is no allegation that she was divorced from her h
