The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed an FIR lodged by the victim girl against her fiancé for making physical relationship on the pretext of a false promise of marriage while dealing with the anticipatory bail of the accused boy.

The Court passed the said order on a joint application of both the parties, stating that the FIR was lodged under a misunderstanding and now both of them are married. The Apex Court noted the argument of Advocate Rishi Matoliya, appearing for the victim girl, “that she was constrained to file the FIR owing to an apprehension and misunderstanding on the premise that the appellant may not keep up his promise of marrying her.” The Court held that, “However, since the parties are married, that apprehension no longer survives, and the allegations made by the second respondent against the appellant and his family members will pale into insignificance.”

As per the petition before the Supreme Court, the girl and the boy met through the online matrimonial website Shaadi.com in 2023 and thereafter their marriage was fixed. Due to misunderstandings, the marriage was broken down in November 2024. Thereafter, there were marriage talks going on between the parties. When this did not materialize, the girl filed a criminal complaint against the boy in June 2025, which culminated into the registration of the FIR.

The anticipatory bail of the boy was dismissed by the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court. When he approached the Supreme Court, a caveat was filed by the girl, but later, before the first hearing of the case, they reconciled their dispute and decided to get married.

The Supreme Court extended the protection from arrest to the boy by its order dated 01.09.2025, and immediately thereafter, they got married on 06.09.2025. The police filed a charge-sheet in the case on 25.09.2025 against the boy and his parents.

While interacting with the boy and the girl, it was revealed that both the parties are software engineers, working with Amazon (boy) and IndiaMart (girl), and now after the marriage, they live together in Bengaluru.

The Court held, “Consequently, the FIR No. 0676 of 2025 dated 07.06.2025 lodged with Police Station Indirapuram, District Trans Hindon (Commissionerate Ghaziabad) in respect of the offences punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 stands quashed as against the appellant and his family members.”

Case Details: –

SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 13309/2025)
GOURAV PATHAK
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Appearances

For Petitioner(s) :

Ms. Mridul Jindal, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Tandon, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Agnihotri, Adv.
Ms. Indira Goswami, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kshitish Bikarmia, Adv.
Mr. Raghuveer Pujari, Adv.
Ms. Sumati Sharma, Adv.
Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR
Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Adv.
Ms. Ashwina Lakra, Adv.

Click here to download the Judgment