Rape Case Allegation: Surat Lawyer Withdraws Quashing Petition Before Gujarat HC
The incident involved dating back to a relationship between the two lawyers which started in 2018 and allegedly continued until the lady lawyer learnt about the advocate’s marriage to another woman in 2026.
Neutral
The Gujarat High Court on September 17 allowed Surat-based advocate to withdraw his plea seeking quashing of a rape case against him.
Justice MK Thakker disposed off the petition after the accused- lawyer sought permission to withdraw the plea.
“The Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. ”
The accused lawyer is said to have entered into a sexual relationship with a woman lawyer after falsely promising to marry her.
The accused had also moved the trial court for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR. Bar and Bench had reported that the trial court had refused anticipatory bail to the accused.
The case arose out of an eight-year relationship between the two lawyers.
The complainant stated that she met the accused in 2018 and the duo started living together as boyfriend-girlfriend until March 20.26. She alleged that she continued to have relations with the accused until she learned about his marriage with another woman.
The complainant refuted the idea that their relationship was merely a consensual relationship as maintained by the accused. The woman lawyer alleged that when she first met him in 2018, he had misrepresented himself to her by hiding the fact that he was a Muslim named “Rohan.”
She claimed that in August 2018, he did a “symbolic marriage” at her office. This was when he applied sindoor on her forehead and made her wear a mangalsutra.
The woman lawyer alleged that he continued to make promises that he would marry her in the coming years. Relying on these promises, she said that she had sexual relations with him.
She further alleged that even after she knew about his religious background, he continued to make promises that he would marry her. According to her, he told her that he would convert to Hinduism, change his name and marry her.
The complainant claimed that she later discovered that he got married to another woman on March 1, 20.26. Prior to their marriage, he had introduced the lady to the complainant as his sister.
She believed that the FIR registered against him on her complaint could not be quashed at the preliminary stage itself, especially since both the parties were making contradictory claims.
The petitioner advocate did not agree to her version of events.
Seeking quashing of FIR, he claimed that woman advocate’s statement was concocted and did not make out the offences alleged against him.
According to him, he and the complainant were involved in a consensual relationship. He claimed that the allegations of rape and false promise of marriage were subsequently raised by the complainant.
Supporting his claim, he relied on WhatsApp chats between him and the complainant. He claimed that these chats prove beyond doubt that she was demanding money from him and threatening him. The plea also pointed towards various transactions made by the complainant to him.
Additionally, he also raised the delay in filing of the FIR. He claimed that as per the complainant’s statement, their relationship started in 2018, however, the FIR was only filed on May 15, 20.26.
Lastly, he relied on the above facts to argue that the complainant’s version of events does not hold water and her account of how their relationship progressed cannot be true.
The complainant, however, explained why she filed the FIR after such a long time.
In her affidavit filed against the quashing plea, she mentioned that she believed the petitioner would keep his promise and marry her. Therefore, she did not go to the police when their relationship ended. It was only when she came to know that he had married someone else that she finally filed an FIR against him.
Lastly, the complainant woman lawyer also challenged the authenticity of the chats produced by the accused.
The accused had produced chats which he alleged showed the complainant demanding money and threatening him to file a false case. However, she submitted that they were fake and had been created with the help of an application.
“She has created a false and fabricated chat using a fake application to show that the deponent had demanded money and threatened the petitioner to file a false case,” her affidavit said.
She also criticised the transactions that were pointed out by the petitioner. While he claimed that these were loan-related transactions, the complainant claimed that these were made to pay for the electricity bills and motorcycle instalments.
The Court refused to go into the merits of the matter as the petition was withdrawn.
Senior Advocate Mitesh Amin along with advocate Rahul R Dholakia appeared for the accused.
AAP Meet Thakkar appeared for the State.
Advocates Jay A Tamakuwala, A Maulink Nanavati and Ronith Joy represented the woman advocate ( complainant).
