Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 262
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No…………. of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025)
Ankit Tomar
…Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
…Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, accused under Section 376 (2)(n) and
1
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code , 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
2
Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and Anr . By the
impugned order, the High Court rejected the same finding
Signature Not Verified
1
For brevity ‘the IPC’
2
2025 SCC Online SC 1230
Digitally signed by
SACHIN KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Date: 2026.03.18
17:38:42 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 6
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025
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
Page 2 of 6
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025
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
Page 3 of 6
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025
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
Page 4 of 6
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025
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 husband or even separated from him. We are
convinced that as in the cited decision, there was a
consensual relationship, neither inducement nor threat
and no possibility of a deception luring the complainant
into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage.
9. We are of the opinion that there is no reason to wait
for the FSL report since even if the child, who passed away,
is found to be of the appellant, the consent demolishes the
case of the complainant that there was rape on the promise
of marriage. We hence find absolutely no reason to sustain
the order of the High Court. We set aside the order of the
High Court and quash the criminal proceedings in FIR
No.127 dated 28.03.2024 of the Police Station Kheripul,
Page 5 of 6
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025
District – Faridabad and there shall be no further
proceedings on the said FIR. The bail bonds executed by
the appellant shall stand cancelled.
10. The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
……….…..…….…………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
.……….…….……….……. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 26, 2026.
Page 6 of 6
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No…………. of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025)
Ankit Tomar
…Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
…Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, accused under Section 376 (2)(n) and
1
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code , 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
2
Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and Anr . By the
impugned order, the High Court rejected the same finding
Signature Not Verified
1
For brevity ‘the IPC’
2
2025 SCC Online SC 1230
Digitally signed by
SACHIN KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Date: 2026.03.18
17:38:42 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 6
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025
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
Page 2 of 6
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025
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
Page 3 of 6
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025
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
Page 4 of 6
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025
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 husband or even separated from him. We are
convinced that as in the cited decision, there was a
consensual relationship, neither inducement nor threat
and no possibility of a deception luring the complainant
into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage.
9. We are of the opinion that there is no reason to wait
for the FSL report since even if the child, who passed away,
is found to be of the appellant, the consent demolishes the
case of the complainant that there was rape on the promise
of marriage. We hence find absolutely no reason to sustain
the order of the High Court. We set aside the order of the
High Court and quash the criminal proceedings in FIR
No.127 dated 28.03.2024 of the Police Station Kheripul,
Page 5 of 6
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025
District – Faridabad and there shall be no further
proceedings on the said FIR. The bail bonds executed by
the appellant shall stand cancelled.
10. The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
……….…..…….…………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
.……….…….……….……. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 26, 2026.
Page 6 of 6
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025