Supreme Court Quashes Rape Proceedings, Citing Consensual Relationship and Misuse of Law.


26 May 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Rape >> Criminal Law  

In a significant ruling of Amol Bhagwan Nehul v/s The State of Maharashtra & Another, the Supreme Court of India on May 28, 2025, quashed criminal proceedings against a 25-year-old man accused of rape, emphasizing that a consensual relationship turning sour cannot be a ground for invoking the State's criminal machinery. The Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order that had dismissed the appellant's petition to quash the charges.

The case originated from a complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no. 2 on July 31, 2023, alleging that the appellant had forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her between June 8, 2022, and July 8, 2023, under the false assurance of marriage. The complainant, a previously married woman with a four-year-old son, had obtained a Khulanama (divorce) from her ex-husband and resided at her parental home. The appellant, a 23-year-old Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) student, lived as a tenant next door.

 
 

According to the complainant, their acquaintance blossomed into friendship and then love. She alleged that in July 2022, the appellant entered her house at night, promised marriage once her divorce was finalized, and had sexual intercourse despite her denial. Further incidents of sexual intercourse on the assurance of marriage were alleged in September 2022 and January 2023, with a specific allegation of unnatural sex in the latter instance. The complainant claimed the appellant then reduced interactions and left for his hometown. On July 8, 2023, she visited his native village, where his family allegedly refused the marriage due to religious differences and assaulted her. The FIR was registered 23 days after this incident.

The appellant, however, presented a different narrative. He denied the allegations of forced sexual intercourse and claimed the complainant had pursued him, regularly visiting his college and even leading to grievances with the faculty. His father had filed a written complaint on July 24, 2023, alleging harassment by the complainant, claiming she took his son to lodges against his will and threatened false rape cases if he refused marriage. A Non-Cognizable Offence Information Report (NCR) was also registered on July 24, 2023, regarding a threatening phone call received by the appellant.

The appellant sought anticipatory bail, which was granted on August 23, 2023. The Additional Sessions Judge, while granting bail, observed that the complainant was "matured to understand the significance and morality to which she is consenting" and that her continued physical relationship over months indicated consent.

Subsequently, the appellant moved the Bombay High Court to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings, which included a charge sheet filed on September 26, 2023. The High Court dismissed his petition.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law and fell within the categories outlined in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992). He contended that allegations of forcible sexual assault and unnatural sex were improbable due to lack of medical evidence and that the relationship between two mature adults was consensual. The delay of 13 months in filing the FIR, despite the sustained relationship, also cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations.

After reviewing the material on record, the Supreme Court highlighted several points:

  • Even accepting the FIR's allegations as true, the complainant's consent did not appear to be obtained against her will or solely on a promise to marry. Her sustained relationship for over 12 months and continued visits to lodges contradicted her claims of non-consensual acts.
  • The complainant's consent, as per Section 90 IPC, could not be considered obtained under a misconception of fact. There was no evidence to suggest "inducement or misrepresentation" by the appellant. The fact that the complainant obtained her Khulanama in December 2022, while the alleged incidents had already occurred, made it "inconceivable" that she engaged in a physical relationship based on a marriage assurance while still married to someone else. The Court noted that such a promise, to begin with, was "illegal and unenforceable" for the appellant.
  • There was no evidence of coercion or threat to attract an offense under Section 506 IPC. The relationship was cordial until the appellant graduated and left for his hometown, after which the complainant became agitated. The Court also noted the complainant's "unacceptable" conduct of visiting the appellant's native village without intimation, suggesting a "disgruntled state of mind" and underlying motive for the prosecution.
  • The Court found it "improbable" that a married woman with a child would continue to be deceived and maintain a prolonged physical relationship with someone who had sexually assaulted and exploited her.
The Supreme Court concluded that this was not a case of a false promise to marry. "A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State," the Court stated, adding that such actions burden the courts and "blot the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence." The Court reiterated its past warnings against the misuse of rape provisions.

Ultimately, the Court held that the ingredients of offenses under Sections 376(2)(n) or 506 IPC were not established. The case squarely fell under categories 102(5) and 102(7) of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, which allow for the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law, particularly where allegations are "absurd and inherently improbable" or proceedings are "manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance."

Considering the appellant's age and his future, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Bombay High Court's order and quashing the criminal case and all emanating proceedings. The appellant was discharged, and his bail bonds were canceled. 


Section 90., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 506., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 482., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973