Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra
“Consensual Relationship Turning Sour Cannot Be Ground for Invoking Criminal Machinery”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 IPC against a 25-year-old agricultural student accused of rape on the basis of a false promise to marry by a separated but legally married woman. The Court held that a consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking the criminal machinery of the State. The promise of marriage made to a woman who was still legally married was inherently illegal and unenforceable, and the complainant's own conduct of sustaining the relationship for over 12 months contradicted her allegations of sexual assault.
The Bottom Line
A consensual sexual relationship between adults that ends badly does not amount to rape. Filing false rape charges based on a broken promise of marriage, especially when the promise was legally unenforceable, constitutes misuse of the criminal justice system. Courts must distinguish between genuine cases of sexual exploitation and relationship breakdowns.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Parties Became Acquainted
Amol Bhagwan Nehul and the complainant met as neighbours in Kalegaon, Karkad, Satara District
Parties Became Acquainted
Amol Bhagwan Nehul and the complainant met as neighbours in Kalegaon, Karkad, Satara District
Alleged First Sexual Intercourse
Complainant alleged the appellant had sexual intercourse with her on a promise of marriage if she obtained a divorce
Alleged First Sexual Intercourse
Complainant alleged the appellant had sexual intercourse with her on a promise of marriage if she obtained a divorce
Alleged Second Sexual Intercourse
Second alleged incident of sexual intercourse at Rajyog Lounge, Karad
Alleged Second Sexual Intercourse
Second alleged incident of sexual intercourse at Rajyog Lounge, Karad
Khulanama (Divorce Deed) Executed
Complainant obtained divorce from her husband, notably after the first two alleged incidents
Khulanama (Divorce Deed) Executed
Complainant obtained divorce from her husband, notably after the first two alleged incidents
Alleged Third Sexual Intercourse
Third alleged incident of sexual intercourse at Pushkar Lodge, Ogalewadi
Alleged Third Sexual Intercourse
Third alleged incident of sexual intercourse at Pushkar Lodge, Ogalewadi
Visit to Appellant's Village
Complainant visited the appellant's village where she was allegedly beaten by his family members
Visit to Appellant's Village
Complainant visited the appellant's village where she was allegedly beaten by his family members
FIR Registered
FIR (C.R. No. 490/2023) registered at Karad Taluka Police Station under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 IPC after a 23-day delay
FIR Registered
FIR (C.R. No. 490/2023) registered at Karad Taluka Police Station under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 IPC after a 23-day delay
Anticipatory Bail Granted
Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, granted anticipatory bail to the appellant
Anticipatory Bail Granted
Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, granted anticipatory bail to the appellant
Chargesheet Filed
Police filed chargesheet against the appellant
Chargesheet Filed
Police filed chargesheet against the appellant
High Court Dismisses Quashing Petition
Bombay High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR and proceedings
High Court Dismisses Quashing Petition
Bombay High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR and proceedings
Supreme Court Quashes FIR
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and quashed the FIR and all proceedings
Supreme Court Quashes FIR
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and quashed the FIR and all proceedings
The Story
Amol Bhagwan Nehul, a 23-year-old student pursuing a Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) at Krishna College of Agriculture, Karad, became acquainted with the complainant (Respondent No. 2), a woman aged over 23 years who was separated from her husband but not legally divorced and had a four-year-old child. They were neighbours in Kalegaon, Karkad, Satara District.
The two met on June 8, 2022, and their friendship gradually evolved into a romantic relationship. The complainant alleged that in July 2022, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her for the first time after promising to marry her if she obtained a divorce from her husband. She further alleged that sexual intercourse took place on two more occasions: on September 21, 2022, at Rajyog Lounge, Karad, and in January 2023, at Pushkar Lodge, Ogalewadi.
In July 2023, the appellant left for his hometown. On July 8, 2023, the complainant visited the appellant's village where she was allegedly beaten by his family members. Thereafter, on July 31, 2023, after a delay of 23 days from the alleged incident at the village, the complainant filed an FIR (C.R. No. 490/2023) at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara, under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
The complainant alleged that the appellant had engaged in sexual intercourse and unnatural sex on a false promise of marriage, harassed her, borrowed money from her, and threatened and abused her. A Khulanama (divorce deed) was executed on December 29, 2022, which was notably after the alleged first and second incidents of sexual intercourse, meaning the complainant was still legally married when she claimed to have consented based on a promise of marriage.
The appellant obtained anticipatory bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, on August 23, 2023. A chargesheet was filed on September 26, 2023. The appellant then filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and proceedings, which was dismissed on June 28, 2024. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Relationship was entirely consensual
The appellant argued that the relationship between the parties was consensual between two mature adults. The complainant willingly sustained the relationship for over 12 months and voluntarily visited lodges on multiple occasions, which is entirely inconsistent with allegations of rape or sexual exploitation.
Promise of marriage was legally unenforceable
The appellant contended that the complainant was still legally married at the time of the first two alleged incidents. A promise to marry a person who is already married is inherently illegal and unenforceable, and therefore cannot vitiate consent under Section 376 IPC.
Significant delay in filing FIR
There was a delay of 23 days in filing the FIR after the alleged incident at the village, and a delay of approximately 13 months from the first alleged sexual intercourse. This delay undermined the credibility of the allegations.
No medical evidence of forcible assault
There was no medical evidence to support allegations of forcible sexual intercourse or unnatural sex, further establishing that the relationship was consensual.
FIR filed as tool of vengeance
The FIR was registered maliciously after the relationship soured, using the criminal machinery as a tool for personal vengeance rather than to seek justice for genuine criminal conduct.
Respondent
State of Haryana
False promise of marriage vitiates consent
The State argued that sexual intercourse obtained on a false promise of marriage constitutes rape as the consent was obtained by misconception of fact, which falls within the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC.
Serious offences alleged
The State contended that the charges included aggravated rape under Section 376(2)(n) and unnatural offences under Section 377, and that these serious charges warranted a full trial rather than quashing at a preliminary stage.
High Court rightly dismissed the petition
The State maintained that the Bombay High Court had correctly dismissed the Section 482 petition and that there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court conducted a thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances and found glaring inconsistencies between the complainant's allegations and her own conduct. The Court examined the timeline of events, noting that the complainant was still legally married when she claimed to have been deceived by a promise of marriage. The divorce deed (Khulanama) was executed on December 29, 2022, well after the first two alleged incidents. The Court observed that no reasonable woman who had been sexually assaulted would continue to voluntarily visit lodges and maintain a relationship for over 12 months with her assailant. The Court applied the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT) of Delhi to hold that the FIR did not disclose a prima facie case and constituted an abuse of the criminal process. The Court also considered the appellant's age of 25 years and concluded that subjecting him to an impending trial on such baseless charges would be unjust.
A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State.
The central principle of the judgment, drawing a clear distinction between criminal conduct and relationship breakdowns.
Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence.
Highlights the devastating impact of false rape allegations on the accused, including social stigma and reputational damage.
There is no reasonable possibility that the 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.
Uses the test of reasonableness to assess the credibility of the complainant's version, finding it inherently improbable.
The promise of marriage was illegal and unenforceable while the complainant remained married.
Establishes an important legal principle that a promise which is legally impossible cannot form the basis for vitiating consent.
This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions. To treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under Section 376 IPC is a folly.
A strong caution against the trend of converting every broken relationship into a criminal case under Section 376 IPC.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The appellant, a 25-year-old agricultural student, was completely discharged from all criminal proceedings. The FIR under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 IPC and all proceedings arising from it were quashed. Any bail bonds were cancelled.
Directions Issued
- The order of the Bombay High Court dated June 28, 2024, dismissing the Section 482 CrPC petition, was set aside
- C.R. No. 490/2023 registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara, and all proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed
- The appellant was discharged of all charges
- Any bail bonds executed by the appellant were cancelled
- All pending applications were disposed of
Key Legal Principles Established
A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking the criminal machinery of the State.
Not every breach of promise to marry amounts to a false promise that can sustain a prosecution under Section 376 IPC for rape.
A promise of marriage made to a person who is still legally married is inherently illegal and unenforceable, and cannot vitiate consent.
The conduct of the complainant must be assessed along with the allegations to determine whether the FIR discloses a prima facie case.
Courts must guard against the weaponization of rape laws for personal vendettas arising from failed relationships.
Filing false rape charges on the basis of a consensual relationship not only burdens courts but tarnishes the identity of the accused.
For consent to be vitiated on the ground of false promise to marry, there must be evidence of intent to deceive from the very inception, not merely a subsequent change of mind.
The power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you are in a consensual adult relationship that ends, the other person cannot file a rape case simply because the relationship did not work out.
- A promise to marry someone who is still legally married to another person is not enforceable and cannot be used as a basis for rape charges.
- If you are falsely accused of rape after a consensual relationship, you can approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or the Supreme Court to get the case quashed.
- The mere filing of an FIR under Section 376 does not make a person guilty. Courts will examine the overall conduct and circumstances before allowing prosecution.
- False accusations of rape can have devastating consequences on the accused. Courts have recognized this and will intervene to prevent abuse of criminal law.
- Being in a physical relationship and later having the relationship end does not automatically give either party the right to file criminal charges.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: The right to personal liberty underpins the Court's intervention to prevent an innocent person from being subjected to a baseless criminal trial.
Article 142
Constitution of India
“The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.”
Relevance: The Court exercised its power to do complete justice by quashing the FIR and discharging the appellant.
Statutory Provisions
Section 376
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Punishment for rape. Whoever commits rape shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Relevance: The primary charge against the appellant, which the Court found was not made out as the sexual relationship was consensual.
Section 376(2)(n)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever commits rape repeatedly on the same woman shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”
Relevance: The aggravated rape charge invoked on the basis of repeated sexual intercourse, which the Court found inapplicable as the relationship was consensual.
Section 377
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished.”
Relevance: Charge of unnatural offences invoked in the FIR, which the Court found unsupported by any medical evidence.
Section 375
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Definition of rape, including that consent obtained by misconception of fact is not valid consent.”
Relevance: Central to the analysis of whether consent was vitiated by a false promise of marriage.
Section 504
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.”
Relevance: One of the additional charges in the FIR that was quashed.
Section 506
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Punishment for criminal intimidation.”
Relevance: One of the additional charges in the FIR that was quashed.
Section 482
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
Relevance: The jurisdictional provision under which the quashing petition was filed before the High Court and ultimately granted by the Supreme Court.
Related Cases & Precedents
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
followed1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Supreme Court laid down the standard categories and guidelines for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings. The Court in the present case applied these principles to find that the FIR did not disclose a prima facie case.
Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT) of Delhi
followed2023 SCC OnLine SC 89
Supreme Court warned against the misuse of rape provisions and held that not every breach of promise to marry should be treated as a false promise warranting prosecution under Section 376 IPC.
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra
similar(2019) 9 SCC 608
Supreme Court distinguished between a false promise to marry made with no intention of keeping it from the inception, and a breach of promise where the accused initially intended to marry but later changed his mind.
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana
similar(2013) 7 SCC 675
Supreme Court drew the distinction between rape and consensual sex, holding that a breach of promise to marry does not always amount to rape.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.