False promise to marry, and a consensual relationship turning sour cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery
Judgment dated 26th May 2025
Cause title : Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr
Case No: SLP Criminal No. 10044 of 2024
A Bench of Supreme Court Hon'ble Justice B.V. NAGARATHNA and Hon'ble Justice SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA allowed the appeal filed by the accused in a case alleging that the Appellant, Amol Bhagwan Nehul, had sexual intercourse with her forcibly under the false assurance of marriage. The complainant alleged that the Appellant entered her house in July 2022 and had sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage, despite her denial. The appeal was filed against an order from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which dismissed a petition seeking to quash a criminal case (C.R. No. 490/2023) and related proceedings (RCC No. 378/2023) against Amol Bhagwan Nehul.
Facts of the case are:
The criminal case was registered based on a complaint by Respondent No. 2, alleging that the Appellant, Amol Bhagwan Nehul, had sexual intercourse with her forcibly under the false assurance of marriage between June 8, 2022, and July 8, 2023. The Complainant, who was previously married and had a 4-year-old son, had obtained a "Khulanama" (divorce from her ex-husband). The Appellant, a 23-year-old student, was her neighbor. The complainant alleged that the Appellant entered her house in July 2022 and had sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage, despite her denial. Further incidents of sexual intercourse on the assurance of marriage were alleged to have occurred in September 2022 and January 2023. She also alleged unnatural sex in January 2023. On July 8, 2023, when the Complainant visited the Appellant's native village, his family refused the marriage due to different religions and allegedly assaulted her. The complaint was registered on July 31, 2023.
The Appellant denied the allegations, stating that the Complainant
harassed him, visited his college, and threatened to implicate him
in false rape cases if he refused to marry her. His father had also
filed a written complaint alleging harassment by the Complainant. An
anticipatory bail was granted to the Appellant by the Additional
Sessions Judge, who noted that the Complainant, being a mature lady,
was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse.
The Supreme Court observed that even if the allegations in the FIR
were true, the Complainant's consent did not appear to be obtained
against her will or merely on an assurance to marry, especially
since she sustained the relationship for over 12 months and visited
the Appellant in lodges on two separate occasions. The Court found
no material to substantiate "inducement or misrepresentation" by the
Appellant. It was also noted that the Complainant obtained her
divorce on December 29, 2022, after the alleged incidents had
already taken place, making it "inconceivable" that she engaged in a
physical relationship on the assurance of marriage while still
married to someone else. The Court found no evidence of coercion or
threat to attract Section 506 IPC.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The Supreme Court concluded that this was not a case of false
promise to marry, and a consensual relationship turning sour cannot
be a ground for invoking criminal machinery. The ingredients of
offenses under Sections 376(2)(n) or 506 IPC were not established.
The Court determined that the case falls under the categories
identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing criminal
proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law. Consequently,
the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was
set aside. The C.R. No. 490/2023 and the proceedings emanating
therefrom in RCC No. 378/2023 were quashed, and the Appellant was
discharged.
Download Judgment dated 26th May 2025 in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr, SLP Criminal No. 10444 of 2024.