Consensual Relationship Turning Sour Or Partners Becoming Distant Can’t Be A Ground For Invoking Criminal Machinery: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has quashed rape charges against a man while holding that a consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State.
The Court set aside the Order of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed the Appellant’s Petition seeking the quashing of a criminal case under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held, “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.”
AOR Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The FIR was lodged by the complainant alleging that the Appellant had been in a relationship with her since 2022, promising marriage. She claimed that he engaged in sexual intercourse with her multiple times under this false promise and that she became pregnant and abortion was done. She further alleged that he inflicted cruelty upon her, insulted her, and threatened her to kill.
The Appellant approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, but his Petition was dismissed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted, “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 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.”
Court stated that the FIR itself indicated a relationship between the parties, and a perusal of the same did "not disclose a prima facie case" against the Appellant. The Court noted that the "complainant continued to be in relationship with the appellant after her marriage."
“As demonstrated hereinabove, the ingredients of the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC are not established…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,” the Bench held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 782)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh; Advocates Nishant Sharma, Ankur Savadikar and Viraj M. Parakh
Respondents: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande and Nar Hari Singh; Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla and Amit Balasaheb Thorat
