Surat lawyer withdraws quashing plea in alleged 'promise of marriage' rape case
The Gujarat High Court on September 17 allowed a Surat-based advocate to withdraw his petition seeking quashing of a first information report (FIR) in which he is accused of having a sexual relationship with a woman advocate on the false promise of marriage. Justice M.K. Thakker disposed of the petition after the accused sought permission to withdraw it, making clear that the court had not examined the merits of the allegations.
"This Court has not gone into the merits of the matter," Justice M.K. Thakker said, according to a report in Bar & Bench.
The allegations arise out of what the complainant describes as an eight-year relationship that began in 2018 and continued until March 2026, when she alleges she learned of the advocate's marriage to another woman. The FIR, filed by the woman advocate, contends that the accused induced and maintained a physical relationship by repeatedly promising marriage.
Key elements of the complainant's account, as reported, include:
- The relationship commenced in 2018 and allegedly continued for years.
- The accused is said to have initially concealed his Muslim identity and introduced himself as "Rohan".
- In August 2018 the accused is alleged to have performed a "symbolic marriage" at the complainant's office by applying sindoor and placing a mangalsutra.
- He is alleged to have repeatedly assured the complainant that he would convert to Hinduism, change his name and marry her, assurances that the complainant says continued even after she learned his religious identity.
- The complainant alleges she later discovered the accused had married another woman on March 1, 2026, after earlier introducing that woman to her as his sister.
The petitioner — the Surat advocate named in the FIR — contested the complainant's narrative and initially sought a judicial order to quash the FIR. He also applied for anticipatory bail before the trial court; the report indicates the trial court denied that plea. Following those steps, he moved the Gujarat High Court to quash the FIR at the investigation stage but subsequently sought to withdraw the petition.
In allowing withdrawal, the High Court did not determine the factual disputes between the parties. The complainant had argued that the FIR should not be quashed at the investigation stage given the competing versions and the gravity of the allegations. The petitioner maintained a differing account of the relationship.
Local implications and legal procedure
The case touches on several matters of immediate relevance to Surat's legal community and residents: the handling of alleged matrimonial deceit, the interplay of personal law and criminal procedure where religious identity and conversion are referenced, and the threshold for quashing FIRs at the investigation stage when parties provide divergent accounts.
Under Indian criminal procedure, applications to quash FIRs are considered cautiously, particularly where the complaint alleges non-consensual acts or where allegations raise public-order or social issues. The High Court's statement that it did not examine merits preserves the investigative agency's scope to pursue evidence and for the trial court to adjudicate contested facts.
| Timeline | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018 | Complainant says relationship began; August 2018 alleged symbolic marriage (sindoor, mangalsutra) |
| 2018–2026 | Complainant alleges repeated assurances of marriage and physical relations |
| 1 March 2026 | Complainant alleges accused married another woman |
| September 17, 2026 | Gujarat High Court allows withdrawal of quashing petition; matter not decided on merits |
For Surat's bar, the matter underscores reputational and procedural stakes when allegations arise between legal professionals. The complainant is identified as a woman advocate; the accused is a Surat-based advocate. The publicly reported sequence of events has already involved applications for anticipatory bail, a trial court hearing and this High Court petition.
The withdrawal of the quashing petition will likely leave the investigative process and any eventual criminal trial to proceed without interlocutory relief from the High Court on the issue of quashing. Given the competing accounts, investigators and the trial court will be the principal arenas for resolution of disputed facts.
No further orders on the merits were recorded by the High Court at the time of the reported disposition, and the court's limited direction preserves the scope for criminal proceedings to continue as per statutory process.
