Gujarat High Court permitted the advocate from Surat to withdraw his petition for quashing of the rape case on him on 17th September.

Bench of Justice MK Thakker dismissed the petition when the respondent-advocate requested the court to permit him to withdraw the petition.

The advocate was charged of having sexual relationship with a lady advocate under the false pretense of marrying her.

The respondent had also approached the court of trial to grant him anticipatory bail in the FIR that was registered against him. On enquiry from sources they stated that his plea was denied by the court of trial.

It is believed that both the advocates had shared a relationship for eight years.

It was submitted by the complainant that she shared a relationship with the advocate (petitioner) since 2018 and continued to do so till she came to know that he had married another woman in the month of March 2026.

The complainant did not agree that both were in a consensual relationship as per the version of the respondent. It was further submitted that he had kept his religion i.e Muslim hidden from her when they first met in 2018 and had told her that his name is "Rohan".

She also stated that he had done a "fake marriage" with her at her office in August 2018 by applying sindoor on her head and putting mangalsutra on her neck.

It was further submitted that he assured her that he will marry her and had intercourse with her on that promise.

The complainant submitted that he kept doing so even after she knew that he is Muslim. He had also promised her that he will become a Hindu and change his name and marry her.

She stated that she came to know that he had married another woman on 1st March 2026 whom he had previously introduced to her as his sister.

So she stated that the FIR that was registered on her complaint cannot be quashed at the stage of investigation especially when both parties have given contradictory versions about the relationship they shared.

The petitioner stated otherwise about the relationship that he shared with the complainant.

He moved the court to quash the FIR as the statements made by the lady advocate are false and don't amount to the offence which she has alleged him for.

He submitted that both of them were sharing a consensual relationship and the rape and false promise of marriage is a story that came to mind after some time.

WhatsApp conversations were also relied upon by him where the complainant can be seen asking for money and threatening him. Money transfers between the two were also mentioned in the petition.

It was also submitted that the complainant had taken time to register an FIR against him. The complainant has stated that she shared a relationship with the petitioner since 2018 whereas the FIR was registered on 15th May 2026.

This lapse of time was also used by the petitioner to dispute the charges and story shared by the complainant.

However the complainant gave a different reason for the delay in registering the FIR.

She stated in her affidavit against the quashing petition that she kept on believing that the petitioner will marry her and hence didn't go to the police station. It was only when she came to know that he had married another woman that she registered the FIR.

She also disputed the WhatsApp conversations that the male advocate had relied upon.

Where the male advocate had relied on the chats that the complainant asked for money and threatened him, she stated that the chats were fake and made by using an application.

She also contested the money transactions that the petitioner had relied on. The complainant stated that those were towards electricity bills and payment of the bike instalments.

But the court did not look into the statement made by both the parties and let the case be withdrawn.