AMOL BHAGWAN NEHULversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 150 : 2025 INSC 782

                        Amol Bhagwan Nehul
                                  v.
                   The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 2835 of 2025)
                                 26 May 2025
       [B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the correctness of order passed by the High
       Court dismissing the petition whereby the appellant sought quashing
       of criminal case against him that the appellant forcibly had sexual
       intercourse with the complainant on false promise of marriage.

                                  Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of
       criminal case – Complainant alleged that the appellant
       forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on false promise of
       marriage – Complaint made and chargesheet filed against
       appellant u/ss.376, 376(2)(n), 504, 506 IPC – Appellant sought
       quashing of criminal case – High Court dismissed the petition –
       Correctness:
       Held: It does not appear from the record that the consent of the
       complainant was obtained against her will and merely on an
       assurance to marry – Narrative of complainant does not corroborate
       with her conduct – Consent of complainant as defined u/s.90 IPC
       also cannot be said to have been obtained under a misconception of
       fact – No material to substantiate “inducement or misrepresentation”
       on the part of appellant to secure consent for sexual relations
       without having any intention of fulfilling said promise – Criminal
       prosecution against the appellant is probably with an underlying
       motive and disgruntled state of mind – No reasonable possibility
       that complainant or any woman being married before and having a
       child of four years, would continue to be deceived by the appellant
       or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with
       an individual who has sexually assaulted and exploited her –
       Not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin
       with – Consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming
       distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the

* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            151

        Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.


     State – Ingredients of the offence u/ss.376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC not
     established – Appellant is just 25 years of age, and has a lifetime
     ahead of him, thus, in the interest of justice, the proceedings
     quashed at this stage itself – Impugned judgment set aside – Penal
     Code, 1860 – ss.376, 376(2)(n), 504, 506. [Paras 8-12]

                              Case Law Cited
     State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992)
     Supp. 1 SCC 335 – relied on.
     Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT) of Delhi [2023] 1 SCR 1061 : 2023
     SCC Online SC 89 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

                             List of Keywords
     Quashing of criminal case; Forcible sexual intercourse on false
     assurance of marriage; Unnatural sex; Consent obtained under
     misconception of fact; Inducement or misrepresentation; Promise;
     Coercion or threat of injury; Criminal prosecution with underlying
     motive and disgruntled state of mind; Sexual assault; Invoking
     criminal machinery of State; Blotting identity of individual accused
     of heinous offence; Prevent abuse of process of law; Interest of
     justice.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     2835 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2024 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Bombay in CRWP No. 3181 of 2023

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Ankur S.
     Savadikar.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Bharat Bagla, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande,
     Nar Hari Singh, Amit Balasaheb Thorat.
152                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 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
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       153

        Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.


           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 period of incidence,
     when he had been assigned a program at Village Kalegaon, Tq.
     Karad. Dist. Satara for five months, he became acquainted with the
     Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as his neighbor. The Appellant has
     denied the allegations of having forced sexual intercourse with the
154                                                             [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                                  Supreme Court Reports


       Complainant/Respondent no. 2 on the assurance of marriage, and
       stated that it was in-fact the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 who had
       approached him with proposals and would regularly visit his college,
       which even led to grievances raised with the college faculty. Vide
       a written Complaint dt. 24.07.2023 with the Police Inspector, Karad
       Taluka PS Satara, the father of the Appellant has alleged that the
       Complainant/Respondent no. 2 had been harassing his son & had
       taken him to different lodges against his will and had threatened
       to implicate him in false rape cases, if he refused to marry her. A
       Non-Cognizable Offence Information Report (NCR)1 dt. 24.07.2023
       had been registered pursuant to a threatening phone call received
       on 22.07.2023 at 10:30 pm in the night, on the Appellant’s mobile
       number from another mobile, allegedly threatening that she will beat
       him by entering his house and destroy his family.
5.     Pursuant thereto that the FIR had been maliciously registered against
       him and that no prima-facie case u/s 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506
       IPC could be made out against him, the Appellant sought anticipatory
       bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, which was granted
       vide Order dt. 23.08.2023. The Additional Sessions Judge, while
       granting bail to the Appellant made the following remarks:
              “9. In this backdrop the point cannot be side lined that
              the victim is matured to understand the significance and
              morality to which she is consenting. The prosecutrix who
              is major lady gives consent even on any of the aforesaid
              assumption and she had sexual intercourse with applicant/
              accused, she will be under all circumstances and in all
              respect considered to be a consenting party. This coupled
              with the fact that day after day, week after week and month
              after month, this arrangement continued until the day of
              reckoning when she complained that promise of marriage
              is not fulfill or that all this while she was being fedup of
              this false assurance. Whatever be the worth of promise
              or assurance, in law informant is deemed to have given
              consent on her own accord as far as sexual intercourse
              is concerned. When two young male and female having
              attained the age of discretion get attracted to each other and


1    Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            155

          Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.


             due to emotional and passionate attachment succumbed
             to temptation of sexual relationship then such mental and
             voluntary participation does not come in the way of granting
             bail. Hence, accused is entitled for pre-arrest bail. The
             apprehension shown by prosecution will be safeguarded
             by imposing conditions…….”
6.    The Appellant then preferred Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 seeking
      quashing of the C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 & the proceedings
      emanating therefrom before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
      and in the meanwhile, the investigation culminated into a charge-
      sheet 26.09.2023 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad.
7.    The learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the High Court
      has erred in dismissing the Petition u/s 482 CrPC insofar as the
      criminal proceedings in the present case constitute an abuse of
      process of law, and is well within the categories as contemplated
      by this Court in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal2. It is argued that
      the allegations of forcible sexual assault and unnatural sex are
      highly improbable as there is no medical evidence to adduce that
      forcible sexual assault and unnatural sex had been committed upon
      the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 and that allegations of rape are
      unsustainable as the relationship between the parties being two
      mature adults was purely consensual in nature. It is argued that the
      captioned FIR is registered after a delay of 13 months from the date
      of the alleged incident, which is considerable to cast doubt on the
      veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant/Respondent no.
      2, especially when she sustained her relationship with the Appellant
      since the alleged incident.
8.    Having heard both sides in this case and after carefully considering
      the material on record, the following attributes come to the fore:
      (a)    Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as a true and
             correct depiction of circumstances, it does not appear from the
             record that the consent of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2
             was obtained against her will and merely on an assurance to
             marry. The Appellant and the Complainant/Respondent no. 2
             were acquainted since 08.06.2022, and she herself admits that


2    (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335.
156                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


             they interacted frequently and fell in love. The Complainant/
             Respondent no. 2 engaged in a physical relationship alleging
             that the Appellant had done so without her consent, however
             she not only sustained her relationship for over 12 months, but
             continued to visit him in lodges on two separate occasions.
             The narrative of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 does not
             corroborate with her conduct.
       (b)   The consent of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 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 the part
             of the Appellant to secure consent for sexual relations without
             having any intention of fulfilling said promise. Investigation has
             also revealed that the Khulanama, was executed on 29.12.2022
             which the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 had obtained from
             her ex-husband. During this time, the parties were already
             in a relationship and the alleged incident had already taken
             place. It is inconceivable that the Complainant had engaged
             in a physical relationship with the Appellant, on the assurance
             of marriage, while she was already married to someone else.
             Even otherwise, such promise to begin with was illegal and
             unenforceable qua the Appellant.
       (c)   There is no evidence of coercion or threat of injury to the
             Complainant/Respondent no. 2, to attract an offence under
             section 506 IPC. It is improbable that there was any threat caused
             to the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 by the Appellant when
             all along the relationship was cordial, and it was only when the
             Appellant graduated and left for his hometown to Ahmednagar,
             the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 became agitated. We also
             cannot ignore the conduct of the Complainant/Respondent
             no. 2 in visiting the native village of the Appellant without any
             intimation, which is also unacceptable and reflects the agitated
             and unnerved state of mind of the Complainant/Respondent
             no. 2. For the same reason, the criminal prosecution against
             the Appellant herein is probably with an underlying motive and
             disgruntled state of mind.
       (d)   There is also no reasonable possibility that the Complainant/
             Respondent no. 2 or any woman being married before and
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             157

          Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.


             having a child of four years, would continue to be deceived by
             the Appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical
             relationship with an individual who has sexually assaulted and
             exploited her.
9.    In our considered view, 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 the State. Such conduct not only
      burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused
      of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned
      against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly3 to treat
      each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute
      a person for an offence under section 376 IPC.
10. As demonstrated hereinabove, the ingredients of the offence under
    Sections 376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC are not established. The present
    case squarely falls under categories enumerated in Para 102(5) &
    102(7) as identified by this Court in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan
    Lal (supra) for the exercise of powers u/s 482 CrPC by the High
    Court so as to prevent the abuse of process of law. Para 102 reads
    as under:
             “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
             relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
             the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
             decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
             under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section
             482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced
             above, we have given the following categories of cases by
             way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised
             either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
             otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
             be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
             sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
             formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
             cases wherein such power should be exercised.



3    Naim Ahmed Vs State (NCT) of Delhi (2023) SCC Online SC 89.
158                                                     [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


       (1) Where the allegations made in the first information
       report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
       face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
       facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
       the accused.
       (2) Where the allegations in the first information report
       and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
       disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
       by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
       under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
       155(2) of the Code.
       (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
       or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
       same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
       make out a case against the accused.
       (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
       cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
       offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
       without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
       Section 155(2) of the Code.
       (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
       are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
       basis of which no prudent person can ever reach
       a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
       proceeding against the accused.
       (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
       of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
       which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
       and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there
       is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
       providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
       aggrieved party.
       (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
       attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
       is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
       wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
       to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      159

           Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.


11. Taking into consideration that the Appellant is just 25 years of
    age, and has a lifetime ahead of him, it would be in the interest of
    justice that he does not suffer an impending trial and, therefore, the
    proceedings emanating from C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 are
    quashed at this stage itself.
12. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed and the Impugned Order
    dt. 28.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
    in Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 is set aside. Accordingly, C.R. No.
    490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 registered at Karad Taluka Police Station,
    Satara and proceedings emanating therefrom in RCC no. 378/2023
    pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad are quashed,
    and Appellant is discharged. Bail bonds, if any, also stand cancelled.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain