Bombay High Court
Dheeraj Arjun Sawant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 November, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AS:49552-DB 10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 956 OF 2020
Dheeraj Arjun Sawant
Aged - 29 years, Occu. - Business,
R/o. Flat No. 701, B - Wing, ...Petitioner
19 Sai Darshan Society,
Kamothe, New Mumbai
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through (Sr. Inspector of Police
Kamothe Police Station in
F.I.R. No. 176 / 2019).
2] X.Y.Z. ...Respondents
Aged - 29 years, Occu. - Service,
R/o. Flat No. 701, B - Wing, 19 Turbhe,
New Mumbai.
Permanent Address : Village - Mauli,
Tal. - Manora, Kamothe, New Mumbai
Mr. Priyal G. Sarda a/w. Ms. Seema S. Dighe, advocate for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP, for Respondent No.1 - State.
Ms. Komal Gopal Sinha, advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: MANISH PITALE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED: 17th NOVEMBER 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(PER MANISH PITALE, j.):-
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
2025.11.18
20:52:36
+0530
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
1. Heard Mr. Priyal Sarda, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the Respondent-State and
Ms. Komal Gopal Sinha, learned counsel appointed through Legal
Aid to appear on behalf of respondent no.2 (first informant).
2. By this Petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the
First Information Report ("FIR", for short) No. 0176 of 2019,
registered with Police Station Kamothe, Navi Mumbai, for offence
punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) and 417 of the Indian Penal
Code ("IPC", for short). The petitioner has also prayed for
quashing and setting aside the criminal proceeding arising out of
the said FIR i.e. FIR No. 0176 of 2019, pending in the form of
Sessions Case No. 192 of 2020, before the Court of Sessions Court
at Panvel. Copy of the charge sheet is also annexed to the Writ
Petition.
3. By an order dated 6th March, 2024, this Court granted stay of
the proceeding before the aforesaid Court.
4. We have taken up the petition for hearing and disposal.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if
the statement of the respondent no.2, on the basis of which the
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
subject FIR was registered and the material that has come on
record alongwith the charge sheet are taken to consideration, no
case is made out against the petitioner for the offences alleged
against him. It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent no.2
were in a consensual relationship. At the time of registration of FIR
the respondent no.2 was about 28 years old, working as a Nurse.
The petitioner and respondent no.2 got in touch with each other
through social media platform-Facebook and upon exchanging
their mobile numbers, they were in constant touch with each other.
This resulted in a romantic relationship between them. It is
submitted that although the petitioner and the respondent no.2
intended to marry each other, there was opposition from the family
of the petitioner, particularly, his mother, on the ground of the
difference in castes between the petitioner and respondent no.2
and for other reasons.
6. It is submitted that despite attempts being made on the part
of the petitioner to convince his parents and family for marriage
with the respondent no.2, the same did not fructify and that in
such a situation, the allegations levelled against the petitioner do
not make out the offences registered against him. It is submitted
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
that, the law concerning Section 90 of the IPC in the context of
"misconception of facts" has been considered in the context of the
allegations of rape on false promise of marriage in various
judgments.
7. In the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Anr.1, the Supreme Court has taken into
consideration earlier judgments and laid down the law,
distinguishing a false promise of marriage from inability to live up
to the promise or expectation of marriage. After recognizing and
laying down the principles of the said judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court applied the same to the facts therein, to hold in
favour of the accused.
8. Reliance was also placed on a recent order dated 29 th
January, 2025 passed by the Supreme Court, in an Appeal arising
out of SLP (Cri) No. 1889 of 2024 (Nitin B. Nikhare Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr.), wherein identical offences registered under
IPC as also offences registered against the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were
1 2019 9 SCC 608
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
quashed on the ground that, the relationship between the parties
was consensual from the beginning.
9. By placing reliance on the said judgments of the Supreme
Court, it was submitted that the present petition deserves to be
allowed.
10. On the other hand, the learned APP submitted that, the
position of law would not apply to the present case, as the
statements made in the FIR clearly show as to the manner in which
the petitioner continued to indulge in physical intimacy with the
respondent no.2, despite himself being aware of the opposition
from his family to the marriage with respondent no.2.
11. It was submitted that despite the said situation and attempts
to convince his family failing, he called the respondent no.2 to his
house and indulged in sexual activities, which according to the
respondent no.2 was against her wishes. It was submitted that the
material placed on record i.e. the chargesheet supported the
statements made in the FIR and at this stage itself, without
recording of evidence, it would not be safe to hold in favour of the
petitioner.
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
12. It was submitted that the material on record does indicate
the intention of the petitioner from very beginning to give a false
impression to the respondent no.2 about marriage and to take
advantage of the situation. On this basis it is submitted that the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
no.2 supported the submissions made by the learned APP. It is
submitted that, this was clearly a case of false promise of marriage,
as the petitioner was all along aware about the difference in castes,
between his family and that of respondent no.2. It is submitted
that after having enjoyed physical relations with respondent no.2,
the petitioner refused to marry her on the excuse that his parents
and family were opposing the alliance. The chronology of events
stated in the FIR, particularly the last incident of 15 th August,
2019, sufficiently makes out a strong prima facie case against the
petitioner and therefore, this Court may not show any indulgence
to him. It is submitted that recording of evidence is clearly
necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the
law recognized by the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Supra)
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
and other judgments is applied. It is vehemently submitted that
this was a strong case showing that the respondent no.2 was under
misconception of fact, when she gave consent for sexual
intercourse with the petitioner. On this basis it was submitted that
the petition deserves to be dismissed.
14. We have considered the rival submissions, in the light of the
statements made in the FIR and also the material that has come on
record alongwith the charge sheet. The offence in the present case
pertains to Section 376 (2) (n) and 417 of the IPC. The crux of the
allegations against the petitioner pertains to a false impression
given to respondent no.2, that the petitioner would be marrying
her and in the garb of giving such an assurance, he took advantage
and had physical sexual intercourse with her.
15. The supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Supra) , took into
consideration earlier judgments discussing the concept of
misconception of fact as defined under Section 90 of the IPC. After
referring to earlier judgments, including judgment of Deepak
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
Gulati Vs. State of Haryana2, the Supreme Court in this Judgment
observed as follows:
"16. Where the promise to marry is false and the intention
of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was
not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her
to engage in sexual relations, there is a "misconception of
fact" that vitiates the woman's "consent", On the other
hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false
promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the
promise should have had no intention of upholding his
word at the time of giving it. The "consent" of a woman
under Section 375 is vitiated on the ground of a
"misconception of fact" where such misconception was the
basis for her choosing to engage in the said act. In Deepak
Gulati this Court observed:
"21.... There is a distinction between the mere breach
of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus,
the court must examine whether there was made, at
an early stage a false promise of marriage by the
accused; and whether the consent involved was given
after wholly understanding the nature and
consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a
case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual
intercourse on account of her love and passion for the
accused, and not solely on account of
misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or
where an accused on account of circumstances which
he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his
control, was unable to marry her, despite having
every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated
differently."
2 (2012) 7 SCC 675
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
17.....
18. 18. To summarise the legal position that emerges
from the above cases, the "consent" of a woman with
respect to Section 375 must involve an active and
reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To
establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a
"misconception of fact" arising out of a promise to marry,
two propositions must be established. The promise of
marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad
faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the
time it was given. The false promise itself must be of
immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the
woman's decision to engage in the sexual act."
16. The aforementioned principle culled out by the Supreme
Court, has to be applied to the allegations made by the respondent
no.2 in the present case, to examine as to whether a case is made
out for allowing the present petition. In that context it would be
necessary to read the FIR in detail.
17. A perusal of the statement of respondent no.2, leading to
registration of FIR, shows that at the time of registration of FIR,
the respondent no.2 was 28 years old, indicating that when she
first got in touch with the petitioner in 2016/2017 on the social
media platform Facebook, she was already 27 years old. She has
been working as a Nurse and is obviously an educated person
having the maturity of a 27 years old woman.
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
18. It is specifically stated by the respondent no.2 that she
exchanged mobile numbers with the petitioner and that the
petitioner used to visit her in the hospital were she was employed.
Respondent no.2 has herself stated that her friendship with the
petitioner became a romantic alliance. Thereupon, it is stated that
the petitioner gave her an impression that he would be marrying
her and he had physical intimacy with her at his residence. It was
further alleged in the statement that thereafter the petitioner used
to meet her regularly and he used to continue giving the promise
of marrying respondent no. 2 and in that context they had physical
intimacy and sexual intercourse.
19. It was then stated by respondent no.2 that in March 2019
when her parents were about to fix her marriage with another
person, the petitioner met her parents and sought time of 15 days
to convince his parents with regard to marriage with respondent
no.2. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly informed that his parents
did not agree to the marriage due to difference in castes and the
fact that the respondent no.2 was working as a Nurse. It was
alleged that the petitioner stated that he would not be able to
marry respondent no.2 against the wishes of his parents. It is then
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
alleged that the petitioner went to Pune and yet the respondent
no.2 kept in touch with him on phone.
20. The further contents of the statement of the respondent no.2
show that on 9th May, 2019, she called the petitioner's sister on
phone and requested for marriage with the petitioner. Thereafter,
the respondent no.2 claims that she went and met the parents of
the petitioner and requested that the marriage be solemnized, but
they continued to oppose the same. Thereafter, the petitioner's
sister informed the respondent no.2 that since their mother was
conservative, she would not be prepared to give consent for the
marriage. It is then stated that the respondent no.2 repeatedly
used to make phone calls to the Petitioner requesting for marriage,
but, he refused.
21. Thereupon, it is alleged that on 15 th August, 2019, at about
5.00 p.m. the petitioner called respondent no.2 at his place and
upon giving her promise of marriage again forcibly had physical
intimacy with her. It is claimed that at about 6:30 p.m. the
respondent no.2 went to her place and thereafter again repeatedly
called the petitioner for marriage, but he refused. In this backdrop,
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
after about one and half months, on 22 nd September, 2019,
respondent no.2 approached the police for registration of FIR.
22. The investigation led to filing of the charge sheet wherein
the statements of witnesses appear to be supporting the allegations
made by the respondent no.2 in her statement leading to
registration of the FIR.
23. The question that arises for consideration is, even if the
aforesaid statement alongwith the material, that has come on
record before the Court, is accepted, as to whether a prima facie
case is made out against the petitioner for the offences registered
against him.
24. We find that even if the allegations made by the respondent
no.2 in the aforesaid statement are accepted, as it is, a case of
consent being given for sexual intercourse on a "misconception of
fact", is not made out. As noted hereinabove, the respondent no.2
was a 27 years old matured gown up working woman who came in
touch with the petitioner on the social media platform-Facebook.
Upon exchange of mobile numbers, friendship developed between
them, which became a romantic alliance. This is stated by the
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
respondent no.2 herself. Such statements indicate that the physical
intimacy and sexual intercourse that happened between the
petitioner and respondent no.2 was a consensual relationship
between them. Although dates of such sexual encounters are not
specified by the respondent no.2, what emerges from her
statement is that atleast from 2017 onwards, she was in regular
touch with the petitioner and that they were in a relationship.
25. It was only in March 2019, when the parents of the
respondent no.2 looked for a marriage alliance for her that she had
to divulge her relationship with the petitioner. Even according to
the respondent no.2, the petitioner upon becoming aware about
her parents thinking of her marriage elsewhere, approached her
parents and asked for time of 15 days to convince his parents and
family for marriage with respondent no.2.
26. This indicates atleast an attempt being made by the
petitioner to convince his family for marriage with respondent
no.2. It appears that despite his attempts, the petitioner was
unable to convince his parents and he did not appear to have the
courage to go against his family to marry respondent no.2.
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
27. We are of the opinion that in such circumstances, it cannot
be said that the petitioner from the very inception of the
relationship with respondent no.2, interacted and gave a false
impression of marriage to the respondent no.2, only with a view to
have physical intimacy and sexual intercourse with her.
28. The narration of events in chronological order from March
2019 onwards on the part of respondent no.2 itself shows that she
was making attempts through the petitioner's sister for marriage
with the petitioner. She also met his parents, but, since the mother
of the petitioner was stated to be conservative, the petitioner was
unable to convince her for marriage with respondent no.2. It is
further stated that despite these events happening in April/May
2019, the respondent no.2 repeatedly used to call the petitioner on
phone with request for marriage, but he had to refuse.
29. In this backdrop, the last incident of 15th August, 2019,
appears to be unconvincing and unnatural for the respondent no.2
to have visited the house of the petitioner where he allegedly again
gave a false promise of marriage and forcibly had sexual
intercourse with her. It is further stated thereafter, that the
respondent no.2 again repeatedly used to call the petitioner to
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
marry her. If the sexual encounter of 15 th August, 2019 was indeed
based on a false promise of marriage, despite the petitioner, even
according to the respondent no.2, having refused to marry
emphatically in May 2019, and if there was any grain of truth in
the allegation that the petitioner had forced himself on the
respondent no.2, she would not have waited till 22 nd September,
2019, to approach the police leading to registration of the FIR.
30. The chronology of events in the present case gives us an
impression that this was a case of consensual relationship between
the petitioner and respondent no.2. There was an expectation that
they would marry each other.
31. The petitioner made all attempts to convince his parents and
family for the marriage, but he failed, and, thereafter, even
according to the respondent no.2 in May 2019, he emphatically
refused the repeated requests made by the respondent no.2 for
marriage.
32. We are of the opinion that this is a case not of false promise
of marriage, but a case where the marriage between the parties did
not work out because of the circumstances enumerated in the
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
statement of respondent no.2 itself. The circumstances could be
said to be beyond the control of the petitioner, in as much as he
could not convince his parents and family to agree for the
marriage. It is a different matter that the petitioner could be
accused of being a person who could not stand up against his
family or oppose their wishes, but that in itself cannot lead to a
conclusion that from the very inception the petitioner engaged
with the respondent no.2 to give a false promise of marriage and
on that basis to enjoy sexual favours from respondent no.2.
33. We are of the opinion that the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various judgments including Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Supra) applies on all
fours in the facts of the present case, and therefore, the criminal
proceedings initiated against the petitioner need to be interdicted
at this stage itself.
34. In view of the above, the petition is allowed in terms of
prayer Clause (a). Consequently the subject FIR i.e. FIR No. 0176
of 2019, registered with Police Station Kamothe, Navi Mumbai,
and the consequential Sessions Case No. 192 of 2020, pending
before the Court of Sessions Court at Panvel are quashed.
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
10 WP 956 OF 2020.DOC
35. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
{
th
17 November 2025
Rajeshri Aher
