In Raghav Rajesh Aggarwal v. State of Maharashtra, Bombay HC quashed rape on the false promise of marriage against a man, noting that the complainant was already married at the time of the alleged incidents and therefore was not legally eligible to marry the accused.

As per the facts of the case, the complainant, a 24-year-old married woman, met the petitioner at a garment exhibition in Delhi. They exchanged phone numbers, began speaking frequently, and eventually started meeting and travelling together. Their relationship began on 15.01.2023 and continued until 03.07.2024, during which they visited several places and entered into a physical relationship.

The complainant alleged that after returning from a trip to Lonavala, they booked a hotel room in Mumbai, where they consumed alcohol and she fell asleep after petitioner allegedly spiked her drink. She further claimed that he had sexual relations with her and subsequently continued to engage in sexual relations at multiple places on the false promise of marriage.

According to complaint, it was also alleged that families of both parties met and discussed their marriage, performed a “Roka” ceremony, and even booked a pre-wedding photoshoot in Dubai. However, petitioner later refused to marry her after discovering that she was already married.

While examining the material on record, Court noted the marriage certificate of the complainant issued by Government of Maharashtra and stated that she was already married and her marriage was subsisting when she entered into the relationship with petitioner.

Court further found no evidence to suggest that the complainant’s consent was obtained by deception or coercion and observed, “The material on record does not suggest that the Petitioner induced or misled Respondent into giving consent to a sexual relationship or that she was persuaded to have physical relations”.

Therefore, Court concluded that the relationship between the parties was consensual and that the criminal case arose only after the relationship turned sour.

Accordingly, Court held that the ingredients of rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC or Section 69 BNS were not established and quashed the FIR and chargesheet arising from it.