The Gujarat High Court on September 17 allowed Surat-based advocate to withdraw his plea seeking the quashing of a rape case against him.

Justice MK Thakker disposed off the petition after the accused-lawyer sought permission to withdraw it.

"This Court has not gone into the merits of the matter," the judge clarified.

The lawyer is accused of establishing sexual relationship with a woman advocate after giving her a false promise of marriage.

The accused had also sought anticipatory bail before the trial court in connection with the FIR. However, sources told Bar and Bench that the trial court had rejected this plea.

The case arose from an eight-year-long relationship between the two advocates.

According to the complainant, the relationship began in 2018 and allegedly continued until she learnt about the advocate's (petitioner's) marriage to another woman in March 2026.

The complainant denied that their relationship was simply consensual as portrayed by the accused. She alleged that the accused had concealed his Muslim identity when they first met in 2018 and had introduced himself as “Rohan."

She further submitted that he had performed what she described as a “symbolic marriage” with her at her office in August 2018 by applying sindoor to her forehead and making her wear a mangalsutra.

She further alleged that he continued to assure her of marriage over the following years and established physical relations with her on that assurance.

According to her, these assurances continued even after she learnt of his religious identity. He allegedly told the complainant that he would convert to Hinduism, change his name and marry her.

She claimed to have later learnt that he had married another woman on March 1, 2026, despite having earlier introduced that woman to her as his sister.

Therefore, she argued that the first information report (FIR) filed on her complaint could not be quashed at the investigation stage, particularly when the parties were giving competing accounts of their relationship.

The petitioner disputed her account of the relationship.

He sought quashing of the FIR, alleging that the woman advocate’s claims were false and did not make out the alleged offences.

According to the petitioner’s case, the two had been in a consensual relationship. He alleged that the allegations of rape and a false promise of marriage by the complainant were an afterthought.

He relied on WhatsApp exchanges, which, according to him, showed the complainant demanding money and threatening him. The petition further referred to financial transactions between the two as evidence supporting his version of their dealings.

He also pointed to a delay in filing the FIR. He submitted that the complainant had claimed that their relationship began in 2018, while the FIR was registered on May 15, 2026.

The petitioner relied on this gap to challenge the allegations and the complainant’s account of how their relationship had unfolded.

The complainant, however, offered a different explanation for the delay.

In her affidavit opposing the quashing plea, she said that she had continued to believe the petitioner’s assurances that he would marry her and had therefore not approached the police earlier. She claimed that she decided to lodge the FIR only after learning that he had married another woman.

The complainant also disputed the petitioner’s reliance on the WhatsApp conversations.

While the male advocate had relied on chats which allegedly showed her demanding money and threatening him, she countered that the same were false and fabricated and were created using an app.

“The petitioner has created a false and fabricated chat using a fake application to show that the deponent had demanded money and threatened the petitioner,” said her affidavit.

She similarly disputed the petitioner’s account of financial transactions between them. According to her, the payments he had portrayed as loan-related transactions were actually towards expenses such as electricity bills and motorcycle instalments.

The Court, however, did not examine these competing claims. The withdrawal brought the quashing proceedings to an end without any finding on the allegations.

Senior Advocate Mitesh Amin along with advocate Rahul R Dholakia appeared for the accused.

Assistant Public Prosecutor (AAP) Meet Thakkar represented the State.

Advocate Jay A Tamakuwala, A Maulink Nanavati and Ronith Joy appeared on behalf of the woman advocate (complainant).

[Read Order]