AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR 2025 INSC 782:

DATE: 26/05/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

FACTS:

In 2023, a criminal case (C.R. No. 490/2023) was registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara, based on a complaint filed by the respondent alleging that the appellant had forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her between June 2022 and July 2023 under the false pretext of marriage. The complainant, a previously married woman who had obtained Khulanama from her ex-husband, was living with her son at her parental home. The appellant, a 23-year-old agriculture student residing as a tenant nearby, reportedly developed a relationship with the complainant starting June 2022, which later turned intimate despite her repeated denials. It was alleged that the appellant, on multiple occasions, had sexual relations with her after assuring marriage, including instances where the appellant forcibly entered her home. Additionally, the appellant was said to have borrowed money from her and used her vehicle for personal purposes. Later, when the appellant’s family refused to accept the relationship due to religious differences, a physical altercation ensued, leading to the complaint’s registration after a delay of 23 days.

The appellant contested the allegations, claiming that the complainant had initiated the relationship and frequently visited his college, even causing complaints against her conduct. He denied any forced sexual acts and alleged that the complaint was maliciously filed to harass him. The appellant’s father also lodged a separate complaint alleging harassment and threats from the complainant, including coercion and extortion. Following the registration of the FIR, the appellant sought anticipatory bail, which was granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, who noted that the complainant, being a mature adult, was deemed consenting to the relationship and that the promise of marriage did not negate this consent. Despite this, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings and challenge the charge-sheet filed against him, which the High Court dismissed, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

The primary issue in this case is whether the criminal proceedings registered against the appellant for offences including rape and criminal intimidation should be quashed at an early stage, considering the facts and circumstances. The court needed to examine if the allegations of forced sexual intercourse under the false assurance of marriage were sufficiently supported to warrant a trial, or if the relationship was consensual and the complaint was possibly malicious. Additionally, the court had to consider the appellant’s age and future prospects in deciding whether continuing the trial would serve the interest of justice.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dismissing the quashing petition, and quashed the criminal proceedings registered against the appellant under C.R. No. 490/2023, discharging the appellant and cancelling any bail bonds. The Court held that no prima facie case was made out against the appellant and that it was in the interest of justice to prevent him from undergoing an unnecessary trial.

The Court observed that even assuming the allegations in the FIR to be true, the complainant and the appellant had an ongoing consensual relationship for over a year, which included multiple instances of physical interaction and mutual visits. The complainant’s own conduct—maintaining the relationship despite claiming lack of consent—did not align with the narrative of forcible sexual intercourse, thereby weakening the case against the appellant. The Court noted the absence of evidence that the complainant’s consent was obtained by coercion or fraud, highlighting that the sexual acts took place under the assurance of marriage, which in itself does not negate consent in such a prolonged relationship.

Further, the Court emphasized that the ingredients necessary to establish offences under Sections 376(2)(n) (rape by a person in a position of trust or authority) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC were not fulfilled based on the available record. Considering the appellant’s young age and the potential adverse impact of an impending trial on his future, the Court found it just and equitable to quash the proceedings at this preliminary stage itself. The decision was guided by principles of fairness and the avoidance of unwarranted legal harassment when the facts, on prima facie scrutiny, did not support the allegations.

ANALYSIS:

The analysis of this case reveals a complex interplay between allegations of criminal conduct and the dynamics of a consensual relationship. The complainant alleged forcible sexual intercourse under the false promise of marriage, but the evidence and conduct indicated a sustained relationship lasting over a year, involving frequent mutual visits and intimate contact. The Supreme Court noted that the complainant’s behavior, including continued association with the appellant despite her claims of non-consent, undermined the prosecution’s narrative of coercion or force. Importantly, the Court emphasized that mere assurance of marriage does not vitiate consent in a prolonged relationship where both parties actively participated. This raised significant doubts about the validity of the allegations and the strength of the prima facie case required to proceed with a trial.

Furthermore, the Court critically examined the applicability of the charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC, concluding that the essential elements of these offences were not substantiated by the available material. The Court balanced the need for justice with the potential harm to the appellant, a young individual with a lifetime ahead, recognizing that an unnecessary trial would cause undue hardship. This approach reflects judicial restraint and fairness, aimed at preventing misuse of the criminal justice process in cases where the allegations appear tenuous. Ultimately, the decision to quash the proceedings at the preliminary stage underscores the importance of protecting individuals from unwarranted legal harassment when the facts do not support a prima facie case.