‘Every romantic failure isn’t deceit’: Bombay High Court quashes FIR against doctor

The Bombay High Court observed that "a mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings".

3 min readMumbaiUpdated: Sep 12, 2026 02:52 PM IST

The Bombay High Court noted that it has to ensure that criminal law remains a shield against fraud and not a weapon for settling personal disputes over failure of relationship.

Observing that “every romantic failure cannot be painted as deceit” and a “mere breakup cannot result in initiating criminal proceedings,” the Bombay High Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against a nearly 45-year-old doctor accused of having sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage with a 49-year-old widowed doctor.

Justice Abhay J Mantri, sitting at the Kolhapur circuit bench, on September 4, allowed the plea by the man and set aside the case of sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner maintained a sexual relationship with her between January 2019 and June 2023 under the pretext of divorcing his wife to marry her.

Story continues below. Subscribe to see fewer ads.

The court noted that the two had known each other since the early 2000s, and while the complainant’s husband died in an accident in 2011, the petitioner is a married man.

After their relationship strained and ended, they had no contact from September 2024 until the FIR was lodged, which the complainant claimed was delayed due to alleged threats by him to kill her and her children.

Also read | ‘I thought relationships ended with fights. Then I learned the truth about drifting apart’

“The object of the legislature was to punish deceit and not disappointment. Moreover, every romantic failure cannot be painted as deceit,” Justice Mantri observed. The judge added that for an offence under Section 69 BNS, “the prosecution was required to establish the promise was false from the very inception; otherwise, the offence would not be made out,” which it failed to prove in the present case.

“Apart from this, this court has to ensure that criminal law remains a shield against fraud and not a weapon for settling personal disputes over failure of relationship. If the relationship and acts of the petitioner and respondent (complainant) were consensual and voluntary, and showed that they were in a relationship devoid of any coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation, then no offence under Section 69 of BNS would be made out,” the High Court held.

Story continues below this ad

Also read | Both married to others, no ‘promise to wed’ crime: Himachal High Court grants man bail

Citing past Supreme Court rulings, the court observed that “a mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings,” when the woman had not filed any complaint over the alleged threats by the petitioner before the FIR.

The judge perused WhatsApp chats between the two and observed that “the petitioner never stated to her that he would marry her, but they had jointly searched for a marriage proposal for the complainant.”

The HC added, “A bare perusal (of chats) indicates that the respondent (complainant) chatted with him that he might reside with his wife, but she wanted him.”

The court observed, “the relationship was devoid of any coercion, fraud or misrepresentation,” and held that “continuing prosecution will be a gross abuse of process of law.”

Omkar Gokhale

Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions. Expertise & Authority Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage. Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in: Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include: Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes). Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty). Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict. Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability. Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges. Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More

Loading Recommendations...

Sep 24: Latest News

Live Blog