Bombay HC Quashes Rape FIR Against Tour Manager, Flags Complainant's Ten FIRs Across Karnataka and Maharashtra
Finding the complainant had filed ten FIRs against different men since 2011 and deliberately avoided service, the Bombay High Court quashed a 2019 Section 376 FIR registered at Sahar Police Station against a Kesari Tours manager.
Justice Ranjitsinh Raja Bhonsale, sitting singly at the Bombay High Court, on 20 February 2026 quashed C.R. No. 246 of 2019 registered with Sahar Police Station, Mumbai, against Manoj Balasaheb Dhanavade, a tour manager employed with Kesari Tours and Travels. The FIR alleged rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a false promise of marriage during a Malaysia-Singapore tour in June 2019. After examining a table of ten FIRs filed by the complainant against different individuals across Karnataka and Maharashtra since 2011, and noting that the complainant had actively evaded service throughout the proceedings, the court concluded that the prosecution was manifestly malafide and a clear abuse of process. The court also issued directions to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, to circulate the complainant's details to all police stations in the state.
The FIR and the Petitioner's Case
Dhanavade, aged 30 years and residing at Kalwa, Thane, was the tour manager for a Kesari Tours package to Malaysia and Singapore. The complainant, Respondent No. 2, a State Bank of India employee in the Home Loan Department based in Bangalore, had booked the tour in or around May 2019 as a solo traveller. She first met Dhanavade at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Mumbai International Airport on 16 June 2019, when the tour departed. There were approximately 40 tourists on the trip.
According to the prosecution story set out in the FIR, on 20 June 2019 Dhanavade proposed marriage to the complainant during the tour. She sought time to consider. He allegedly took her to his room on the pretext of showing purchased articles, and despite her resistance, had intercourse with her without consent. On 21 June 2019, in Singapore, he allegedly entered her room and again had intercourse without consent. On 22 June 2019 the group returned to Mumbai. When the complainant asked Dhanavade about marriage, he refused. On 23 June 2019, his sister and brother-in-law came to the airport and a heated exchange followed. The complainant threatened to file a complaint if Dhanavade did not marry her.
On 26 June 2019, Dhanavade took the complainant to the Marriage Registrar's office for registration under the Special Marriage Act. She was informed the process would take one month. From 25 June 2019, Dhanavade cut contact. The complainant then filed the FIR on 26 June 2019.
Dhanavade's counsel, Mr. Arjun Kadam, argued that the hotel in Singapore restricted floor access to registered guests only, and that WhatsApp messages showed the complainant had herself granted him access. He further submitted that the complainant had filed as many as ten FIRs against various individuals, including bank officials, police officers, business persons, and other tour managers, and had been married twice, filing Section 498-A complaints against both husbands. On the same day the FIR was lodged against him, Dhanavade had filed a non-cognisable complaint at Kalwa Police Station against the complainant under Section 506 IPC, alleging she had threatened to harm herself if he did not marry her.
The Complainant's Deliberate Evasion of Service
The court recorded in detail the steps taken to serve Respondent No. 2. Despite repeated attempts, she could not be served at the address in the cause title. By an order dated 28 March 2024, an advocate from the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority panel was appointed to represent her, but he remained absent. Fresh attempts were made around 11 August 2025.
The Investigating Officer, Police Inspector Sushma Pandharinath Mali of Sahar Police Station, filed an affidavit dated 2 February 2026 detailing the efforts. The complainant had eight addresses and five mobile numbers, of which two were active. A police team visited her residence at Room No. 05/01, Sannidhi Road, behind Meghashyam, Kansorbency Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore — her mother was present but refused to open the door or provide information. The complainant herself called the Investigating Officer and asked that notice be sent to her WhatsApp number 7676022438 and email deepikayg@yahoo.com. Notice was sent and a station diary entry was made on 14 August 2025. She refused to accept the notice in person or through the local police station.
The court found that the complainant was fully aware of the proceedings and had chosen not to appear. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
A Pattern of Ten FIRs
The court compiled a table of all eleven FIRs filed by or in relation to the complainant since 2011. The picture that emerged was central to the quashing order.
The first FIR, No. 400 of 2011 dated 16 July 2011, was registered with Peenya Police Station, Bangalore under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in respect of her first marriage. The accused were acquitted on 27 March 2018 because the complainant did not appear to give evidence. The acquittal was referred to in a Karnataka High Court judgment in Criminal Petition No. 1364 of 2023.
The second FIR, No. 297 of 2015 dated 22 April 2015, was registered with Subramanyapura Police Station, Bangalore under Sections 376, 420, 504 and 506 IPC. It alleged that a man named Santosh, whom she met on a tour to North India, made a false promise of marriage and had forcible intercourse with her — facts the court found identical in structure to the present FIR.
The third FIR, No. 44 of 2015 dated 14 June 2015, was registered with Shankarapura Police Station, Bangalore under Sections 504, 506-B, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused were acquitted on 8 November 2022 because the complainant again failed to appear.
The fourth FIR, No. 41 of 2017 dated 26 April 2017, was registered with Sheshadripuram Police Station, Bangalore under Sections 376, 307, 323, 328, 354 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC, alleging forcible intercourse by one Kumar Gowrav.
The fifth FIR is the impugned C.R. No. 246 of 2019 against Dhanavade, the second case based on an alleged false promise of marriage during a tour.
The sixth FIR, No. 17 of 2020 dated 5 February 2020, was registered with Chikkaballapur Circle Police Station under Section 376 IPC. The complainant alleged she met one Mohammed Naajim while booking a ticket for a Russia trip, that he professed love over WhatsApp, and then had forceful intercourse with her, promising marriage after four years. The accused were acquitted because the complainant did not appear. The Karnataka High Court referred to this acquittal in its judgment dated 5 September 2023.
The seventh FIR, No. 20 of 2020 dated 29 February 2020, was registered with Basavanagudi Police Station under Sections 354, 504 and 506 IPC, alleging sexual and physical assault. This was filed just 24 days after the sixth FIR.
The eighth FIR, No. 82 of 2020 dated 11 November 2020, was registered with Dharmasthala Police Station under Sections 376 and 323 IPC, alleging false promise of marriage by one Vishwanath, a police officer.
The ninth FIR, No. 157 of 2021 dated 16 September 2021, was registered with Kalasipalya Police Station under Sections 354-A, 417, 504 and 506 IPC, alleging sexual harassment and intercourse under a false promise of marriage by one Abhishek Adiga, described as a bank officer.
The tenth FIR, No. 48 of 2022 dated 22 September 2022, was registered with Kushalnagar Circle Police Station under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 504 read with Section 149 IPC against one Viveka P.K. and his family members, in respect of her second marriage. The Karnataka High Court quashed the entire proceedings by order dated 3 September 2024 in Criminal Petition No. 1364 of 2023. In that same order, the Karnataka High Court directed the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, to take necessary steps against the complainant to prevent future abusive complaints.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Bhonsale applied categories 5 and 7 from the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335. Category 5 covers allegations so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could find sufficient ground to proceed. Category 7 covers proceedings manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance or spite the accused.
The court also drew on the Supreme Court's observations in Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh (SLP(Crl.) No. 4452 of 2025), which held that for a false promise of marriage to vitiate consent under Section 90 IPC, the promise must have been made from the very beginning with an intention to deceive, and must have had a direct bearing on the woman's consent. The Supreme Court in that case had also observed that where the complainant herself was a married woman, a promise of marriage would not be legally enforceable.
Applying these principles, the court identified three facts of particular weight. First, the complainant was already married on the date the FIR was filed on 26 June 2019, as established by FIR No. 400 of 2011 under Section 498-A. Her marital status had been suppressed in the present FIR. Second, even on the complainant's own version, both parties had gone to the Marriage Registrar's office together under the Special Marriage Act, which suggested that if the parties were ready to marry, some intervening circumstance — not a pre-existing fraudulent intent — caused the relationship to break down. Third, the pattern of ten FIRs, four of them under Section 376 IPC with near-identical allegations of false promise of marriage during tours or social encounters, and the complainant's consistent failure to prosecute those cases once filed, pointed to a modus operandi of filing complaints for oblique purposes and then abandoning them.
The court observed that in most of the criminal prosecutions, the complainant had chosen to remain absent, and that the Karnataka High Court had recorded this conduct in its own judgment. The court found that the complainant's deliberate evasion of service in the present proceedings reinforced the inference of malafide intent. It concluded that the present prosecution had been filed with the sole aim of harassing Dhanavade and possibly to blackmail or extort money from him.
Even setting aside the pattern of prior FIRs and examining the present FIR independently, the court held that the facts disclosed a consensual relationship between two adults rather than rape. The complainant was a 34-year-old working woman who had travelled extensively and had been married twice. The court held that the mere fact of physical relations following a promise to marry does not amount to rape in every case, and that an offence under Section 376 IPC is made out only where the false promise was made solely to obtain consent, without any intention of fulfilling it from the outset.
Directions to Maharashtra Police
Beyond quashing the FIR, Justice Bhonsale issued two additional directions. The court directed the Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra, to ensure that all police stations in Maharashtra are provided with the details of the complainant and the various complaints filed by her, so that this information is available on the record and database of each police station. The stated purpose was to ensure that police authorities are cautious when any complaint is received from her seeking registration of a crime against any individual.
The court further directed that in the event any complaint is received from the complainant seeking registration of an FIR, the concerned police station shall act strictly in accordance with law and conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the crime. The court noted that a similar direction had been passed by the Karnataka High Court in its order dated 3 September 2024 in Criminal Petition No. 1364 of 2023.
Order
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2248 of 2023 was allowed. C.R. No. 246 of 2019 dated 26 June 2019, registered with Sahar Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, was quashed and set aside. The Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra, was directed to circulate the complainant's details to all police stations in the state and to ensure that any future complaint from her is subjected to a preliminary inquiry before registration.