Case Analysis: Ankit Tomar vs State of Haryana
Case Details
Case name: Ankit Tomar vs State of Haryana
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K. Vinod Chandra
Date of decision: 26 February 2026
Citation / citations: 2026 INSC 262
Case number / petition number: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 18044 of 2025
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 262
Proceeding type: Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
Source court or forum: Supreme Court of India
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerned Ankit Tomar, who had been accused in FIR No. 127 dated 28 March 2024 filed at Kheripul Police Station, Faridabad. The FIR alleged offences under Section 376(2)(n) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The complainant, a married woman who managed a massage parlour, claimed that Tomar, a customer, had entered into a physical relationship with her beginning in August 2023 and continuing until March 2024. She asserted that Tomar had promised to marry her, that she became pregnant on 15 March 2024, and that a child was subsequently born and later died. The complainant was already married and a mother of two children at the time of the alleged liaison.
Tomar married another woman on 12 March 2024. He was arrested following the FIR and later released on bail by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. He subsequently filed an application before the High Court seeking quash of the FIR under Section 528, relying on Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra. The High Court rejected the application. Tomar then instituted Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 18044 of 2025 before the Supreme Court of India, seeking leave to challenge the High Court’s order, quash the FIR, and cancel the bail bonds that had been executed in his favour.
The Supreme Court, constituted by Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandra, entertained the petition, heard counsel for both parties, and examined the material placed before it, including the FIR, the pending forensic DNA report (which remained incomplete), and the fact that the trial had not yet commenced.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court was required to determine (i) whether the FIR filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, together with the accompanying allegations under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC, should be quashed on the ground that the alleged sexual relationship was consensual and was not procured by inducement, misrepresentation, coercion or any promise of marriage; (ii) whether the High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR was erroneous in view of the precedent set in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra; and (iii) whether the pending DNA report and the death of the child were essential prerequisites for establishing a criminal offence.
The appellant contended that the relationship had been wholly consensual, that no promise of marriage could have induced the complainant because she was already married with children, and that the alleged promise was impossible to fulfil. He further argued that the pending DNA‑profile report was irrelevant, especially since the child was no longer alive, and that the FIR should be quashed.
The State argued that the FIR alleged a physical relationship on the false pretext of marriage and impregnation, that the pending DNA report could establish paternity and support a charge of rape, and that the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the FIR. The complainant maintained that Tomar had promised marriage, had subsequently married another woman, and that she had become pregnant as a result of the relationship.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
The Court considered Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (aggravated sexual assault), Section 506 of the IPC (criminal intimidation), and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (complaints concerning alleged sexual offences obtained by deception). The legal test applied required the prosecution to establish that consent was obtained through inducement, misrepresentation, coercion or threat of injury, or that a promise of marriage constituted deception that vitiated consent.
In Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, the Court had held that where the alleged victim voluntarily engaged in a sexual relationship and no deception was proved, the essential element of consent required for an offence under Section 528 was absent. The Court reiterated that a promise of marriage, when the complainant is already married and has children, does not amount to deception capable of vitiating consent.
Consequently, the binding principle articulated was that Section 528 requires proof of deception; if consent is freely given, even if a promise of marriage is unfulfilled, the FIR cannot stand.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court examined the FIR and the factual matrix and observed that the complainant had admitted falling in love with the appellant, interacting frequently, and engaging in a physical relationship. It held that the consent evident from these facts could not be characterised as having been obtained by inducement, misrepresentation, coercion or threat of injury.
It further noted that the complainant’s marital status and the existence of two children negated any inference that a promise of marriage had been used as a lure. The Court found the appellant’s marriage to another woman on 12 March 2024 to render any alleged promise of marriage impossible to fulfil, thereby undermining the State’s claim of deception.
Regarding the pending DNA‑profile report, the Court concluded that its absence did not affect the assessment of consent, and that the death of the child rendered the report immaterial to the question of whether the FIR should stand. The Court therefore determined that the statutory requirements of Sections 376(2)(n), 506 and 528 were not satisfied.
Applying the legal test from the precedent, the Court held that the FIR was founded on a misapprehension of the nature of the relationship and that the prosecution could not sustain the charges.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, quashed FIR No. 127 dated 28 March 2024, and directed that no further criminal proceedings be instituted in respect of that FIR. It also ordered the cancellation of the bail bonds that had been executed in favour of the appellant. The Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 18044 of 2025 was allowed in the terms stated, and the appellant was released from the pending criminal liability arising from the quashed FIR.