GOKUL BABAN JADHAV v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Quashing FIR: Consensual Relationship with Married Woman; No Inducement or False Promise of Marriage under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:4626-DB
Decision Date: 14-01-2026
List of Laws
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Indian Penal Code (Section 376 IPC - Referred to in Judgment); Criminal Procedure; Consensual Relationship; False Promise of Marriage; Quashing of FIR; Abuse of Process of Law
- Facts: The applicant sought quashing of an FIR registered against him for offences under Sections 64, 64(2)(m), and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, based on allegations by Respondent No. 2 (the informant) that he had physical relations with her under the false pretext of marriage. The informant was already married to another person, Anil, and had left him due to his pre-existing affair. She then developed a relationship with the applicant while preparing for police recruitment. The relationship continued for about a year, during which they resided together. The informant alleged that the applicant later refused to marry her, leading to the registration of the FIR.
- Procedural Posture: The applicant filed a Criminal Application in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Aurangabad.
- Issue: Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings should be quashed, considering the consensual nature of the physical relationship between the applicant and the informant, who was already married, and whether the allegations constitute offences under Sections 64, 64(2)(m), and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Specifically, whether the physical relationship was induced by a false promise of marriage.
- Holding: The High Court allowed the Criminal Application and quashed the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the physical relationship between the applicant and the informant was consensual, and there was no element of fraud, undue influence, or misrepresentation at the inception of the relationship. The informant was a married woman, and her matrimonial ties were subsisting. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another and Mahesh Damu Khare, emphasizing that a consensual relationship turning sour cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery. The Court also noted that the informant was aware of the applicant's marital status and still engaged in a prolonged physical relationship. The court found that the allegations did not demonstrate inducement or a false promise of marriage, and continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. The court also cited State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. to justify exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR.
🔒 For Members Only