Background of the Case
On September 17, the Gujarat High Court permitted a lawyer from Surat to retract his request to dismiss a rape case lodged against him. Justice MK Thakker oversaw the proceedings and accepted the withdrawal of the petition, emphasizing that the court did not evaluate the case’s merits.
Allegations Against the Lawyer
The controversy centers on allegations from a fellow woman advocate. She claims that the Surat lawyer engaged in a sexual relationship with her by falsely promising marriage. The relationship reportedly spanned eight years, beginning in 2018, and persisted until she discovered his marriage to another woman in March 2026. She contends that the initial meeting involved the lawyer misrepresenting his religious identity, introducing himself as “Rohan.”
Details of the Relationship
According to the complainant, the accused performed a symbolic marriage ceremony in August 2018 by applying sindoor and giving her a mangalsutra. Despite learning of his true identity, she alleges he continued to promise marriage, even suggesting he would convert to Hinduism. The revelation of his marriage to another woman, whom he previously introduced as his sister, prompted her to file a First Information Report (FIR) in May 2026.
Defense by the Accused
The accused lawyer sought to quash the FIR, presenting a different narrative. He claimed their relationship was consensual and accused the woman of fabricating the rape allegation post-relationship. The lawyer cited WhatsApp messages allegedly showing the complainant demanding money and threatening him, alongside financial transactions as evidence of their consensual interactions. He highlighted the time gap between the relationship’s start in 2018 and the FIR filing in 2026 to question the allegations’ validity.
Complainant’s Counterarguments
In response, the complainant provided an affidavit opposing the quashing plea, clarifying that her delay in approaching the police was due to her belief in his marriage promises. She dismissed the WhatsApp evidence as manipulated and claimed the financial transactions were misrepresented by the accused, arguing they were related to personal expenses, not loans.
Court Proceedings and Representation
The court refrained from delving into these conflicting claims, concluding the proceedings with the withdrawal of the petition. Senior Advocate Mitesh Amin, with Advocate Rahul R Dholakia, represented the accused, while Assistant Public Prosecutor Meet Thakkar represented the State. Advocates Jay A Tamakuwala, A Maulink Nanavati, and Ronith Joy appeared for the complainant.
