[2025] 7 S.C.R. 150

(Criminal Appeal No. 2835 of 2025), delivered on 26 May 20251.

Core Issue

The Supreme Court examined the correctness of the High Court’s decision to dismiss a petition seeking to quash a criminal case against the appellant, Amol Bhagwan Nehul, who was accused of forcibly having sexual intercourse with the complainant under the false promise of marriage1.

Factual Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 (the complainant) on 31 July 2023, leading to Criminal Case C.R. No. 490/2023 being registered against the appellant2. The complainant alleged that between 8 June 2022 and 8 July 2023, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her by falsely promising marriage2.

Key details from the complainant’s narrative included:

• She was previously married and had obtained a ‘Khulanama’ (divorce) from her ex-husband, residing with her 4-year-old son2.

• The appellant, a 23-year-old student, was her neighbour2.

• Their relationship progressed from acquaintance to friendship and then love3.

• She alleged that in July 2022, the appellant entered her house at night, promised marriage upon her divorce, and had sexual intercourse with her despite her denial3.

• They continued to meet, and on 21 September 2022 (appellant’s birthday), he again had sexual intercourse with her on the assurance of marriage3.

• The appellant allegedly borrowed money and used her car on various occasions3.

• In January 2023, during a visit to a lodge, the appellant allegedly committed unnatural sex with her despite her objection, again on the assurance of marriage4. He had not informed his family about their relationship at this point4.

• Subsequently, the appellant reduced interactions, stopped answering calls, and left for his hometown4.

• On 8 July 2023, when the complainant visited his native village, the appellant’s family refused the marriage due to religious differences and allegedly physically assaulted her5. The complaint was registered 23 days later5.

The appellant, in contrast, stated that the complainant had pursued him, regularly visiting his college, which led to grievances with college faculty6. His father had even filed a written complaint with the police on 24 July 2023, alleging harassment and threats from the complainant, leading to a Non-Cognizable Offence Information Report (NCR)6.

Lower Courts’ Decisions

The appellant sought anticipatory bail, which was granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, on 23 August 20237. The Sessions Judge noted that the complainant was a mature woman whose consent for sexual intercourse was deemed to be on her own accord, especially given the prolonged nature of the relationship7. The appellant then filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) with the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to quash the criminal case and the subsequent charge-sheet8. The High Court dismissed this petition9.

Appellant’s Arguments before Supreme Court

The appellant argued that the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law, falling within the categories outlined in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1011. He contended that:

• Allegations of forcible sexual assault and unnatural sex were improbable and lacked medical evidence10.

• The relationship was consensual between two mature adults10.

• The FIR was registered after a significant delay of 13 months from the alleged first incident, casting doubt on its veracity, especially as the relationship continued during this period10.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings, setting aside the High Court’s order1213. The Court highlighted several crucial points:

• Consent and Conduct: The Court found no material on record to suggest the complainant’s consent was obtained against her will or “merely on an assurance to marry”14. Her narrative did not corroborate her prolonged conduct, as she “not only sustained her relationship for over 12 months, but continued to visit him in lodges on two separate occasions”14.

• Misconception of Fact (Section 90 IPC): The Court concluded that the complainant’s consent could not be said to have been obtained under a “misconception of fact” as defined under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)15. There was “no material to substantiate ‘inducement or misrepresentation’ on the part of Appellant to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise”15. The Court also noted that the complainant’s divorce (‘Khulanama’) was executed on 29 December 2022, after the parties were already in a relationship and the alleged incidents had taken place15. The Court found it “inconceivable” that she engaged in a physical relationship on a promise of marriage while already married to someone else, and noted that such a promise would be “illegal and unenforceable” at the outset15.

• Lack of Coercion/Threat (Section 506 IPC): No evidence of coercion or threat was found to attract Section 506 IPC, as the relationship was cordial until the appellant left for his hometown16.

• Complainant’s Motive and Conduct: The Court considered the complainant’s conduct in visiting the appellant’s native village “without any intimation” and found it to reflect an “agitated and unnerved state of mind”16. It inferred that the criminal prosecution was “probably with an underlying motive and disgruntled state of mind”16.

• Improbability of Deception: The Court found it “improbable” that a married woman with a 4-year-old child would continue to be deceived or maintain a prolonged physical relationship with an individual who had sexually assaulted or exploited her17.

• Consensual Relationship Gone Sour: The Supreme Court reiterated that a “consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State”17. It warned against treating “each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC”17.

• Ingredients Not Established: The Court held that the ingredients of offences under Sections 376(2)(n) or 506 IPC were not established11.

• Abuse of Process (Section 482 CrPC): The case squarely fell under categories identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for exercising Section 482 CrPC powers to prevent abuse of the process of law11.

• Interest of Justice: Considering the appellant’s age (25 years) and his future, the Court deemed it “in the interest of justice” to quash the proceedings at that stage itself, preventing him from suffering an “impending trial”12.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and quashed Criminal Case No. 490/2023 and all proceedings emanating from it, including RCC No. 378/2023 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad. The appellant was discharged1213.