NextFin News - The Bombay High Court has quashed a rape case involving allegations of a false promise of marriage, ruling that a consensual relationship between two adults cannot be criminalized as sexual assault simply because the partnership later soured. In a judgment delivered on March 9, 2026, Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe set aside the First Information Report (FIR) against Raghav Rajesh Aggarwal, emphasizing that the complainant’s existing marriage at the time of the alleged incidents rendered any promise of marriage legally void and, therefore, incapable of constituting "misconception of fact" under Indian law.
The case, Raghav Rajesh Aggarwal v. The State of Maharashtra, centered on a 24-year-old married woman who entered into a relationship with the 26-year-old petitioner after meeting at a garment exhibition in Delhi. The complainant alleged that Aggarwal had engaged in physical relations with her on multiple occasions—including an instance involving a spiked drink in Mumbai—under the pretext that they would eventually marry. The relationship progressed to the point of a "Roka" ceremony and a pre-wedding photoshoot in Dubai before Aggarwal eventually refused to proceed with the marriage, citing the woman’s previous marital status.
Justice Bhobe’s ruling cuts through the emotional complexity of the dispute to address a fundamental legal barrier: the complainant was already married during the period she claimed to have been deceived by a promise of marriage. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the preceding Indian Penal Code (IPC), for a promise of marriage to be considered a "false promise" that vitiates consent, the promise must be the sole reason the victim agreed to sexual acts. However, the court noted that since the woman was not legally eligible to marry the petitioner while her first marriage subsisted, she could not claim to have been misled by a promise that was legally impossible to fulfill.
This decision reinforces a growing judicial trend in India to distinguish between "breach of promise" and "false promise." While the former involves a genuine intention to marry that later changes due to circumstances, the latter involves a deceptive intent from the very beginning. The court found no evidence that Aggarwal intended to deceive the complainant from the outset. Instead, the evidence of shared holidays, family discussions, and wedding preparations suggested a bona fide relationship that collapsed under the weight of personal and legal complications.
The ruling also addressed the specific charges under Section 69 of the BNS, which specifically criminalizes sexual intercourse by "deceitful means" or a promise to marry without the intention of fulfilling it. By quashing the FIR, the Bombay High Court has signaled that the new criminal code will be interpreted with the same rigorous standard for "consent" as the old IPC. The court observed that the complainant was an adult capable of understanding the consequences of her actions, and the deterioration of a consensual bond does not retroactively transform past intimacy into a criminal offense.
Legal experts suggest this judgment will serve as a significant precedent for cases where matrimonial eligibility is at play. By highlighting that the complainant’s own legal status precluded a valid marriage, the court has placed a higher burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate "deceit" rather than mere "deterioration" of a relationship. The dismissal of additional charges under the Information Technology Act and other sections of the BNS further underscores the court's view that the entire criminal proceeding was an overreach into a private, albeit failed, romantic engagement.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
