NIRAJKUMAR JAGJIVANBHAI TANDEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.MA/14109/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14109 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
NIRAJKUMAR JAGJIVANBHAI TANDEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.MEET THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 15/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Meet
Thakkar waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
respondent-State.
2. The present application is filed for quashment of the FIR
11200010260590 of 2026 registered with Valsad Town
Police Station for the offence punishable under section
69 of BNS, 2023.
3. As per the allegations made by the complainant-victim,
against present applicant who is the sole accused, on
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:10:02 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/14109/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
11.01.2019 on the Instagram ID of complainant a
message was received from the applicant by introducing
himself as Nick Tundel. On replying on the same, the
applicant has disclosed his name as well as address. The
same developed into friendship and thereafter the
applicant has asked the number of the complainant
which was initially refused by the complainant and
subsequently it was given. Thereafter, the applicant and
complainant came into contact with each other and used
to go for tea-coffee as well as for having meals together.
The intimacy developed between them and on
27.01.2019, the applicant has called the complainant
and asked her to reach to Jagannath Mandir, Chikvad
and on reaching there, the applicant had taken the
complainant at a lonely place and after some
conversations, and on the promise of marriage, the
applicant asked her to have physical relations with him.
Thereafter, they used to call by video calls as well as
voice call to each other and in the year month of
January, 2019 as well as February-March, 2019 on
various places, the applicant had taken the complainant
and indulged into physical relations. When the
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:10:02 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/14109/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
complainant has refused to have physical relation, the
applicant assured that he would marry the complainant
and under the guise to marry, physical relations were
developed. Thereafter, on 17.03.2025 when the
complainant has asked with regard to marriage, the
applicant has denied on the ground that her age is more
than the applicant. On disclosing the same to the family
members, the complainant was given courage by her
mother to lodge an FIR and the same is subject matter of
challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.J.H.Sindhi for the applicant.
4.1. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.J.H.Sindhi that
bare reading of FIR reveals that the complainant is aged
42 years and applicant is aged 31 years, having been
known to each other since 2018 the complainant is
mature, adult and fully capable of understanding the
moral and legal consequences of her actions. The
relationship spanned continuously over six years with
both the parties frequently meeting, traveling to
different locations and maintaining contact via video
calls and this long term nature of association strongly
negates the allegation of coercion, deceit or
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:10:02 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/14109/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
misconception of fact which suggests consensual
relationship between two consenting parties. It is
submitted by learned advocate Mr.J.H.Sindhi that there
is a delay of 13 months in lodging the FIR as per the
allegations the applicant refused to marry with her on
17.03.2025 however, the FIR came to be lodged on
18.04.2026. It is submitted by learned advocate
Mr.J.H.Sindhi that the complainant being aged 42 years
wanted to marry the applicant which was denied by the
applicant on the ground of age difference and in absence
of deceitful means from the inception, the ingredients of
section 69 of BNS, 2023 is not satisfied.
4.2. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.J.H.Sindhi that
the impugned FIR squarely falls within the parameters
set out by the Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604
and in that background, the impugned FIR is nothing but
abuse of process of law and the same is required to be
quashed. Relying on the following decisions, it is prayed
by learned advocate Mr.J.H.Sindhi to allow the present
application and quash the impugned proceedings:
1. Prashant Vs State of NCT of Delhi reported in MANU/
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:10:02 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/14109/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
SC/1226/2024.
2.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs State of Maharashtra
reported in MANU/SC/1518/2018.
3.Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra
reported in MANU/SC/1142/2019.
4.Deepak Gulati Vs State of Haryana reported in MANU/
SC/0546/2013.
5. Learned APP Mr.Meet Thakkar has vehemently opposed
this application.
6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the respective parties and on referring the
decisions relied by the learned advocate Mr.J.H.Sindhi, it
emerges that it is undisputed settled preposition of law
that where the promise to marry is false at the inception
but accused subsequently fails to fulfill it, the same
would not amount to rape however, the promise of
marriage having given as false promise and with no
intention of being adhered at the time when it was given,
the same would attract the offence under section 69 of
BNS, 2023.
7. The facts involved in the instant case reveals that when
the applicant and the compliment came into contact with
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:10:02 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/14109/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
each other, both were knowing the age of respective
parties. It is not the case of the applicant that he came to
know that the age of the complainant is more than the
applicant only at a later stage. It emerges that when the
complainant denied to indulge into physical relation, the
applicant had promised to marry her and on various
occasions they met and complainant has permitted him
to give the liberties of having physical relation.
7.1. The consent which is given by the complainant cannot
be said to be a consent because she was under
misconception of fact that the accused intends to marry
her. The complainant might be an adult lady but the fact
emerges that from the beginning the complainant had
submitted herself to the accused under the bonafide
impression that the accused would marry her. In that
background, the kind of consent taken by the accused
with clear intention to not fulfill the promise and
persuading the complainant to believe that he is going to
marry her and obtain consent for sexual intercourse
under total misconception cannot be treated to be a
consent.
8. At this stage, where the investigation is at large and
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:10:02 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/14109/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
charge-sheet is yet to be filed, it would be inappropriate
in view of the allegations made in the FIR, to hold that
the intention of the applicant was to marry the
complainant at the time of indulging into physical
relation and subsequently he could not fulfill that
promise. As no such circumstances reveals subsequently
to the physical relation which was maintained under the
guise to have marriage, in the opinion of this Court
interference at this stage would be unwarranted for. The
decision relied by learned advocate Mr.J.H.Sindhi would
be different in the background of the facts involved in
the impugned FIR.
9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned FIR cannot be quashed at this
stage.
10. Resultantly, this application is rejected. Rule is
discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
ARCHANA S. PILLAI
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:10:02 IST 2026