The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in CRM-M-42307-2021 (Sanjeet Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another), vide order dated 17.11.2025, partly allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 180 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code from the charge sheet arising out of FIR No. 96 dated 22.11.2020 registered at Police Station Women, Bhiwani, Haryana. The Court, however, declined to quash the charge under Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Aggrieved by the refusal to quash the Section 67-A IT Act charge, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court of India by way of SLP (Crl.) No. 4964/2026, wherein notice was issued on 24.03.2026 and all further proceedings before the Trial Court were ordered to remain stayed.
Background
The prosecutrix, a practising Advocate at the Courts in Loharu and Bhiwani, lodged a complaint on 22.11.2020 against multiple persons, including her own father, mother, brother, sister, husband, a religious figure, and the petitioner (also a practising Advocate). She alleged, among other things, that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage, sent explicit pictures via WhatsApp, shared their private conversations with her husband, and threatened her with dire consequences.
During investigation, the allegations against the prosecutrix’s family members and the religious figure were found to be false. The charge sheet was ultimately filed only against the petitioner. The original offences of Sections 406 and 509 IPC were dropped during investigation, while Section 180 IPC and Section 67-A of the IT Act were added.
A critical factual aspect was the marital status of the prosecutrix. Her husband had obtained a decree of divorce from the Family Court, Bhiwani on 07.03.2017. The prosecutrix challenged it in FAO-2232-2017 before the High Court, where the decree was stayed on 07.04.2017. The stay continued until 11.12.2020, when the prosecutrix herself withdrew the appeal. Throughout the period of the alleged relationship with the petitioner, her marriage with her husband remained legally subsisting.
The Court’s Findings
On the charge of rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, the Court noted several features that undermined the prosecutrix’s claim. First, the FIR itself contained no allegation that the petitioner had promised to marry the prosecutrix. It was only in the subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the prosecutrix introduced this element for the first time, specifying dates between 21.07.2020 and 12.10.2020. Second, the prosecutrix’s own version was that her parents, brother, sister, and the petitioner’s father had encouraged her to develop a relationship with the petitioner. Third, the FIR was conspicuously silent about dates, time, and material particulars of the alleged offence.
Applying the settled legal position, the Court held that a married woman, who is an Advocate by profession and fully aware of the legal implications of her subsisting marriage, cannot claim that she was induced into a sexual relationship under a misconception of fact by a promise of marriage. Relying on Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi (2013) 9 SCC 293, Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 15 SCC 385, Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal and Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 741, and Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1230, the Court concluded that the relationship was consensual, and that the prosecutrix appeared to have registered the case as an emotional backlash upon learning that her own sister had got engaged with the petitioner.
On Section 180 IPC (refusal to sign a disclosure statement), the Court found the police version inherently improbable, observing that it was absurd to suggest that a legally trained Advocate would sign a confessional statement incriminating himself.
On Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation), the Court noted the complete absence of dates, time, place, or the exact words of the alleged threat, and held that no prosecution under Section 506 IPC was justified.
On Section 67-A of the IT Act, however, the Court took a different view. Since the prosecutrix had alleged in both her FIR and her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that the petitioner had shared the intimate WhatsApp conversations with her husband, the Court held that this element took the matter outside the realm of a private, bilateral exchange between consenting adults. The Court accordingly declined to quash this charge, leaving the question of the applicability of Section 67-A to consensual exchanges open as a debatable issue for trial.
The Supreme Court Stay
The petitioner carried the matter to the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 4964/2026. On 24.03.2026, the Supreme Court issued notice returnable within four weeks and stayed all further proceedings before the Trial Court in FIR No. 96 dated 22.11.2020.
Result
The High Court petition was partly allowed. Sections 376(2)(n), 180 and 506 IPC were quashed from the charge sheet. The charge under Section 67-A of the IT Act survived. The Supreme Court has since issued notice and stayed the trial proceedings pending further hearing.
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate, appeared for the Petitioner, i.e., Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate, appeared before the Supreme Court of India.