The Gujarat High Court has permitted a Surat-based advocate to withdraw his petition seeking quashing of a rape case registered on the complaint of a woman advocate with whom he had been in a relationship for several years.
Justice MK Thakker disposed of the petition after the accused advocate sought permission to withdraw his challenge. The Court made it clear that it had not examined the merits of the allegations.
“This Court has not gone into the merits of the matter,” the Court clarified.
The FIR stems from a relationship between the two advocates that, according to the complainant, began in 2018 and continued for nearly eight years. She alleged that the man repeatedly assured her that he would marry her and established a physical relationship with her on that assurance.
The complainant claimed that she eventually discovered that the advocate had married another woman in March 2026.
Woman advocate disputes claim of consensual relationship
In her response before the High Court, the complainant rejected the accused’s portrayal of their relationship as entirely consensual.
She alleged that when they first met in 2018, the advocate concealed his Muslim identity and introduced himself as “Rohan.” She further claimed that he conducted what she described as a symbolic marriage at her office in August 2018 by applying sindoor to her forehead and putting a mangalsutra around her neck.
According to her, assurances of marriage continued for years. She alleged that even after she came to know about his religious identity, he continued to promise marriage and told her that he would convert to Hinduism, change his name and marry her.
The complainant further alleged that the advocate later married another woman on March 1, 2026, despite having earlier introduced that woman to her as his sister.
She therefore opposed the attempt to terminate the criminal proceedings at the investigation stage, particularly since the two sides had presented sharply different versions of their relationship.
Accused says allegations were an afterthought
The advocate denied the allegations and maintained that the relationship was consensual.
In his petition, he contended that the rape allegation and the claim of a false promise of marriage were subsequently developed as an afterthought. He relied on WhatsApp conversations which, according to his version, showed the complainant demanding money and threatening him.
He also referred to financial transactions between them and argued that these circumstances supported his account of the relationship.
Another point raised by the accused was the delay in approaching the police. While the complainant said the relationship had begun in 2018, the FIR was registered only on May 15, 2026.
The complainant, however, attributed the delay to her continued belief that the advocate would eventually marry her. She said she approached the police only after discovering that he had married someone else.
Dispute over WhatsApp chats and payments
The complainant also challenged the authenticity and interpretation of the WhatsApp conversations relied upon by the accused.
She alleged that the chats showing her allegedly demanding money and issuing threats were fabricated through an application and did not represent genuine conversations.
She also disputed the accused’s description of certain financial transactions as loans. According to her, the payments were connected to expenses including electricity bills and motorcycle instalments.
With both sides placing conflicting versions of their relationship before the Court, the High Court ultimately did not enter into an assessment of the evidence.
Since the petition itself was withdrawn, the Court closed the quashing proceedings without recording any finding on whether the allegations were true or whether the FIR disclosed the offences alleged.
The accused had also approached the trial court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR. That application had reportedly been rejected.
The High Court’s order, therefore, leaves the criminal case unaffected, with no determination on the merits of either side’s allegations.
