Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Amol Bhagwan Nehul – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2835 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024]
Decided On : 26-05-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 read with Section 90 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Rape and criminal intimidation – Sexual intercourse on false assurance of marriage – Misconception of fact – Quashing petition – Even if allegations in FIR are taken as a true and correct depiction of circumstances, it does not appear from record that consent of Complainant was obtained against her will and merely on assurance to marry – Consent of Complainant as defined under Section 90 IPC also cannot be said to have been obtained under a misconception of fact – There is no material to substantiate “inducement or misrepresentation” on part of Appellant to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise – Criminal prosecution against Appellant is probably with an underlying motive and disgruntled state of mind – This is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with – A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of State – Such conduct not only burdens Courts, but blots identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence – Criminal proceedings quashed and Appellant discharged. (Paras 8, 9 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal by special leave is directed against Impugned Order dt. 28.06.2024 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 whereby Petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the Criminal Case C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 for offences punishable u/s 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara qua Appellant was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Taking into consideration that Appellant is just 25 years of age, and has a lifetime ahead of him, it would be in interest of justice that he does not suffer an impending trial and, therefore, proceedings emanating from C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 are quashed at this stage itself.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with any specific aspect.
JUDGMENT :
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal by special leave is directed against the Impugned Order dt. 28.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 whereby the Petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the Criminal Case C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 for offences punishable u/s 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC”) registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara qua the Appellant was dismissed. Vide an amendment to the Petition, the Appellant also challenged the chargesheet filed on 26.09.2023 and the proceedings in RCC no. 378/2023 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad.
3. The Criminal Case C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 at Police Station Karad Taluka, Dist. Satara was registered at the behest of a Complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 alleging that during the period 08.06.2022 till 08.07.2023, the Appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on the false assurance of marriage. The Complainant/Respondent no. 2 who had been previously married, had obtained Khulanama from her ex-husband and had been residing with her 4-year-old son at her parental home in Kalegaon, Karkad Dist since 2021; while the Appellant, a 23-year-old student of Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) at Krishna College of Agriculture, Rethre BK, Taluka Karad District, Satara was residing as a tenant next door, with three other men since 25.05.2022. The sequence of events as recorded in the FIR 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 are as under:
3.1 The parties became acquainted on 08.06.2022, which turned into a friendship and they soon began interacting more frequently. The relationship blossomed into love, but it is stated that the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 repeatedly denied to make physical relations with the Appellant.
3.2 It is alleged the case of the Complainant that in July 2022, the Appellant had entered the house of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 at night, and said that once she obtains divorce from her husband, the Appellant would instantly marry her and on this pretext had sexual intercourse with her, despite her denial. It is stated that since then, the parties continued meeting outside and having meals together; however later on 21.09.2022 on the occasion of the Appellant’s birthday, when the Complainant/Respondent had visited the Rajyog Lounge, Varunji Phata, Airport Karad, the Appellant again had sexual intercourse with her on the assurance of marriage. Thereafter, the Appellant allegedly borrowed money from the Complainant/Respondent no.2 on various occasions & used her car, Hyundai Verna No. MH-12-HZ-9559 for his personal use.
3.3 In January 2023, the parties visited Pushkar Lodge, Ogalewadi, Karad, where the Appellant told the Complainant that he had not informed his family about their relationship, however, he would marry her once her divorce was finalized. Allegedly, despite her objection, the Appellant on this assurance of marriage, again had sexual intercourse with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 and there is a specific allegation that he committed unnatural sex with her. It is alleged that soon thereafter, the Appellant had reduced his interactions with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2, did not answer her phone calls and left for his hometown at Ahmednagar.
3.4 On 08.07.2023, the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 visited his native village in Ahmednagar and met his parents and other relatives, who refused to marry the Appellant with Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as they belonged to different religions. Allegedly, when the Complainant refused to leave, the parents of the Appellant, his brother and his uncle pushed her aside by beating and abusing her. The Complaint dt. 31.07.2023 was registered after 23 days of the alleged incident at PS Taluka Karad, Dist. Satara.
4. The Appellant on the other hand, has narrated the sequence differently, stating that during the alleged p
Rape – Misconception of fact – A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of State.
The inherent powers of the court can quash criminal proceedings when the victim expresses no desire to proceed, especially following reconciliation and marriage, despite serious charges under IPC.
The crucial ingredients of the offence under Section 375 IPC were not established, and the High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on a completely misconceived basis.
Quashing of criminal proceeding – Court will not be justified in embarking upon enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in FIR or complaint.
The court affirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, and quashing of proceedings is not warranted unless allegations do not constitute a cognizable ....
The court ruled that allegations of rape under Section 376 IPC were not established, allowing quashing of the FIR based on the consensual nature of the relationship and the parties' subsequent marria....
Rape – Consensual sex between two adults is not rape.
The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously, allowing investigations unless no cognizable offence is disclosed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
