Justice Prateek Jalan made the observation while dealing with a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered against one Rohit Sehrawat under Sections 376, 313 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The FIR pertains to allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage between 2018 and 2023.

Granting interim relief to the petitioner, the Court observed:

“Prima facie, where allegations of this nature are made against two persons in respect of a sexual relationship which covers the same period, it raises a doubt as to whether the complainant could have been acting on the basis of the promise of marriage made by two different individuals.”

Petitioner argued that the complaint was vitiated by mala fides and pointed out that the complainant had lodged four complaints involving allegations of a sexual nature against different persons between 2024 and 2025. Of the three complaints apart from the present case, two had culminated in closure reports, while one had ended in a settlement.

Senior Advocate Nandita Rao, appearing for the petitioner, drew the Court's attention to a complaint lodged by the same woman in Jaipur against one Sagar Sharma, in which she had also alleged that she entered into a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage during the period spanning 2018 to 2024.

She contended that it was inconceivable that the complainant could have been induced into sexual relationships by false promises of marriage made by two different individuals during the same period. It was further pointed out that allegations of forced abortion under Section 313 IPC had been levelled in both cases.

Petitioner also referred to an earlier complaint lodged by the complainant against him before the Women Police Station in Rewari, which had culminated in a settlement.

According to the petitioner, the complainant had, in a statement recorded on November 22, 2023, undertaken to end her relationship with him, refrain from communicating with him and not file any complaint against him. However, the present FIR came to be registered nearly two years later.

The Court noted that the allegations in the Jaipur complaint covered substantially the same period as the allegations against the petitioner.

It also referred to recent Supreme Court judgments in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, which reiterate that every romantic relationship that turns sour does not amount to rape merely because it was initially premised on a promise of marriage.

Taking note of the overlapping allegations, the High Court held that the matter required consideration and directed that proceedings before the Sessions Court would remain stayed.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 5, 2026.

Appearance: Ms. Nandita Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amit Rana, Mr. Firooz Khan, Mr. Deepak Sehrawat, Mr. Aman, Mr. Akash, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI Sahil. Mr. Irfan Firdous, Ms. Nandini Bindoria, Mr. Vansh Choudhary, Ms. Manmeet Kaur, Ms. Sukriti Bajaj, Mr. Shahreyar Khan, Advocates for R2/complainant.

Case Title: Rohit Sehrawat v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 666

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 1977/2026

Click here to read order