Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 782
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024]
AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal by special leave is directed against the
Impugned Order dt. 28.06.2024 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 whereby the
Petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by ( ‘CrPC’ ) seeking quashing of the Criminal Case C.R. No.
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.05.26
15:20:37 IST
Reason:
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 1 of 13
490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 for offences punishable u/s 376,
376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
“IPC”) registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara qua the
Appellant was dismissed. Vide an amendment to the Petition, the
Appellant also challenged the chargesheet filed on 26.09.2023
and the proceedings in RCC no. 378/2023 pending before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Karad.
3. The Criminal Case C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 at
Police Station Karad Taluka, Dist. Satara was registered at the
behest of a Complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent
no. 2 alleging that during the period 08.06.2022 till 08.07.2023,
the Appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on the false
assurance of marriage. The Complainant/Respondent no. 2 who
had been previously married, had obtained Khulanama from her
ex-husband and had been residing with her 4-year-old son at her
parental home in Kalegaon, Karkad Dist since 2021; while the
Appellant, a 23-year-old student of Bachelor of Science
(Agriculture) at Krishna College of Agriculture, Rethre BK,
Taluka Karad District, Satara was residing as a tenant next door,
with three other men since 25.05.2022. The sequence of events as
recorded in the FIR 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 are as under:
3.1 The parties became acquainted on 08.06.2022,
which turned into a friendship and they soon began
interacting more frequently. The relationship blossomed into
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 2 of 13
love, but it is stated that the Complainant/Respondent no. 2
repeatedly denied to make physical relations with the
Appellant.
3.2 It is alleged the case of the Complainant that in July
2022, the Appellant had entered the house of the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 at night, and said that once
she obtains divorce from her husband, the Appellant would
instantly marry her and on this pretext had sexual intercourse
with her, despite her denial. It is stated that since then, the
parties continued meeting outside and having meals
together; however later on 21.09.2022 on the occasion of the
Appellant’s birthday, when the Complainant/Respondent
had visited the Rajyog Lounge, Varunji Phata, Airport
Karad, the Appellant again had sexual intercourse with her
on the assurance of marriage. Thereafter, the Appellant
allegedly borrowed money from the
Complainant/Respondent no.2 on various occasions & used
her car, Hyundai Verna No. MH-12-HZ-9559 for his
personal use.
3.3 In January 2023, the parties visited Pushkar Lodge,
Ogalewadi, Karad, where the Appellant told the
Complainant that he had not informed his family about their
relationship, however, he would marry her once her divorce
was finalized. Allegedly, despite her objection, the Appellant
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 3 of 13
on this assurance of marriage, again had sexual intercourse
with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 and there is a
specific allegation that he committed unnatural sex with her.
It is alleged that soon thereafter, the Appellant had reduced
his interactions with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2, did
not answer her phone calls and left for his hometown at
Ahmednagar.
3.4 On 08.07.2023, the Complainant/Respondent no. 2
visited his native village in Ahmednagar and met his parents
and other relatives, who refused to marry the Appellant with
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as they belonged to different
religions. Allegedly, when the Complainant refused to leave,
the parents of the Appellant, his brother and his uncle pushed
her aside by beating and abusing her. The Complaint dt.
31.07.2023 was registered after 23 days of the alleged
incident at PS Taluka Karad, Dist. Satara.
4. The Appellant on the other hand, has narrated the sequence
differently, stating that during the alleged period of incidence,
when he had been assigned a program at Village Kalegaon, Tq.
Karad. Dist. Satara for five months, he became acquainted with
the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as his neighbor. The Appellant
has denied the allegations of having forced sexual intercourse
with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 on the assurance of
marriage, and stated that it was in-fact the
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 4 of 13
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 who had approached him with
proposals and would regularly visit his college, which even led to
grievances raised with the college faculty. Vide a written
Complaint dt. 24.07.2023 with the Police Inspector, Karad Taluka
PS Satara, the father of the Appellant has alleged that the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 had been harassing his son & had
taken him to different lodges against his will and had threatened
to implicate him in false rape cases, if he refused to marry her. A
1
Non-Cognizable Offence Information Report ( NCR ) dt.
24.07.2023 had been registered pursuant to a threatening phone
call received on 22.07.2023 at 10:30 pm in the night, on the
Appellant’s mobile number from another mobile, allegedly
threatening that she will beat him by entering his house and
destroy his family.
5. Pursuant thereto that the FIR had been maliciously
registered against him and that no prima-facie case u/s 376,
376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506 IPC could be made out against him,
the Appellant sought anticipatory bail from the Additional
Sessions Judge, Karad, which was granted vide Order dt.
23.08.2023. The Additional Sessions Judge, while granting bail
to the Appellant made the following remarks:
“9. In this backdrop the point cannot be side lined
that the victim is matured to understand the
1
Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 5 of 13
significance and morality to which she is
consenting. The prosecutrix who is major lady gives
consent even on any of the aforesaid assumption
and she had sexual intercourse with
applicant/accused, she will be under all
circumstances and in all respect considered to be a
consenting party. This coupled with the fact that day
after day, week after week and month after month,
this arrangement continued until the day of
reckoning when she complained that promise of
marriage is not fulfill or that all this while she was
being fedup of this false assurance. Whatever be the
worth of promise or assurance, in law informant is
deemed to have given consent on her own accord as
far as sexual intercourse is concerned. When two
young male and female having attained the age of
discretion get attracted to each other and due to
emotional and passionate attachment succumbed to
temptation of sexual relationship then such mental
and voluntary participation does not come in the
way of granting bail. Hence, accused is entitled for
pre-arrest bail. The apprehension shown by
prosecution will be safeguarded by imposing
conditions…….”
6. The Appellant then preferred Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023
seeking quashing of the C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 & the
proceedings emanating therefrom before the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, and in the meanwhile, the investigation
culminated into a charge-sheet 26.09.2023 before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Karad.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 6 of 13
7. The learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the
High Court has erred in dismissing the Petition u/s 482 CrPC
insofar as the criminal proceedings in the present case constitute
an abuse of process of law, and is well within the categories as
2
contemplated by this Court in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal .
It is argued that the allegations of forcible sexual assault and
unnatural sex are highly improbable as there is no medical
evidence to adduce that forcible sexual assault and unnatural sex
had been committed upon the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 and
that allegations of rape are unsustainable as the relationship
between the parties being two mature adults was purely
consensual in nature. It is argued that the captioned FIR is
registered after a delay of 13 months from the date of the alleged
incident, which is considerable to cast doubt on the veracity of the
allegations made by the Complainant/Respondent no. 2,
especially when she sustained her relationship with the Appellant
since the alleged incident.
8. Having heard both sides in this case and after carefully
considering the material on record, the following attributes come
to the fore:
(a) Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as a true
and correct depiction of circumstances, it does not appear
2
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 7 of 13
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.
(b) The consent of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as
defined under section 90 IPC also cannot be said to have been
obtained under a misconception of fact. There is no material
to substantiate “inducement or misrepresentation” on the part
of the Appellant to secure consent for sexual relations without
having any intention of fulfilling said promise. Investigation
has also revealed that the Khulanama, was executed on
29.12.2022 which the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 had
obtained from her ex-husband. During this time, the parties
were already in a relationship and the alleged incident had
already taken place. It is inconceivable that the Complainant
had engaged in a physical relationship with the Appellant, on
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 8 of 13
the assurance of marriage, while she was already married to
someone else. Even otherwise, such promise to begin with
was illegal and unenforceable qua the Appellant.
(c) There is no evidence of coercion or threat of injury
to the Complainant/Respondent no. 2, to attract an offence
under section 506 IPC. It is improbable that there was any
threat caused to the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 by the
Appellant when all along the relationship was cordial, and it
was only when the Appellant graduated and left for his
hometown to Ahmednagar, the Complainant/Respondent
no. 2 became agitated. We also cannot ignore the conduct of
the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 in visiting the native
village of the Appellant without any intimation, which is also
unacceptable and reflects the agitated and unnerved state of
mind of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2. For the same
reason, the criminal prosecution against the Appellant herein
is probably with an underlying motive and disgruntled state
of mind.
(d) There is also no reasonable possibility that the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 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.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 9 of 13
9. 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
3
termed it a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a
false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section
376 IPC.
10. As demonstrated hereinabove, the ingredients of the
offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC are not established.
The present case squarely falls under categories enumerated in
Para 102(5) & 102(7) as identified by this Court in State of
Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (supra) for the exercise of powers u/s
482 CrPC by the High Court so as to prevent the abuse of process
of law. Para 102 reads as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we have given the following categories of
3
Naim Ahmed Vs State (NCT) of Delhi (2023) SCC Online SC 89.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 10 of 13
cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of
a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 11 of 13
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
11. 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.
12. 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,
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 12 of 13
Karad are quashed, and Appellant is discharged. Bail bonds, if
any, also stand cancelled.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
May 26, 2025
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 13 of 13
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024]
AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal by special leave is directed against the
Impugned Order dt. 28.06.2024 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 whereby the
Petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by ( ‘CrPC’ ) seeking quashing of the Criminal Case C.R. No.
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.05.26
15:20:37 IST
Reason:
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 1 of 13
490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 for offences punishable u/s 376,
376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
“IPC”) registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara qua the
Appellant was dismissed. Vide an amendment to the Petition, the
Appellant also challenged the chargesheet filed on 26.09.2023
and the proceedings in RCC no. 378/2023 pending before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Karad.
3. The Criminal Case C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 at
Police Station Karad Taluka, Dist. Satara was registered at the
behest of a Complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent
no. 2 alleging that during the period 08.06.2022 till 08.07.2023,
the Appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on the false
assurance of marriage. The Complainant/Respondent no. 2 who
had been previously married, had obtained Khulanama from her
ex-husband and had been residing with her 4-year-old son at her
parental home in Kalegaon, Karkad Dist since 2021; while the
Appellant, a 23-year-old student of Bachelor of Science
(Agriculture) at Krishna College of Agriculture, Rethre BK,
Taluka Karad District, Satara was residing as a tenant next door,
with three other men since 25.05.2022. The sequence of events as
recorded in the FIR 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 are as under:
3.1 The parties became acquainted on 08.06.2022,
which turned into a friendship and they soon began
interacting more frequently. The relationship blossomed into
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 2 of 13
love, but it is stated that the Complainant/Respondent no. 2
repeatedly denied to make physical relations with the
Appellant.
3.2 It is alleged the case of the Complainant that in July
2022, the Appellant had entered the house of the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 at night, and said that once
she obtains divorce from her husband, the Appellant would
instantly marry her and on this pretext had sexual intercourse
with her, despite her denial. It is stated that since then, the
parties continued meeting outside and having meals
together; however later on 21.09.2022 on the occasion of the
Appellant’s birthday, when the Complainant/Respondent
had visited the Rajyog Lounge, Varunji Phata, Airport
Karad, the Appellant again had sexual intercourse with her
on the assurance of marriage. Thereafter, the Appellant
allegedly borrowed money from the
Complainant/Respondent no.2 on various occasions & used
her car, Hyundai Verna No. MH-12-HZ-9559 for his
personal use.
3.3 In January 2023, the parties visited Pushkar Lodge,
Ogalewadi, Karad, where the Appellant told the
Complainant that he had not informed his family about their
relationship, however, he would marry her once her divorce
was finalized. Allegedly, despite her objection, the Appellant
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 3 of 13
on this assurance of marriage, again had sexual intercourse
with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 and there is a
specific allegation that he committed unnatural sex with her.
It is alleged that soon thereafter, the Appellant had reduced
his interactions with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2, did
not answer her phone calls and left for his hometown at
Ahmednagar.
3.4 On 08.07.2023, the Complainant/Respondent no. 2
visited his native village in Ahmednagar and met his parents
and other relatives, who refused to marry the Appellant with
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as they belonged to different
religions. Allegedly, when the Complainant refused to leave,
the parents of the Appellant, his brother and his uncle pushed
her aside by beating and abusing her. The Complaint dt.
31.07.2023 was registered after 23 days of the alleged
incident at PS Taluka Karad, Dist. Satara.
4. The Appellant on the other hand, has narrated the sequence
differently, stating that during the alleged period of incidence,
when he had been assigned a program at Village Kalegaon, Tq.
Karad. Dist. Satara for five months, he became acquainted with
the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as his neighbor. The Appellant
has denied the allegations of having forced sexual intercourse
with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 on the assurance of
marriage, and stated that it was in-fact the
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 4 of 13
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 who had approached him with
proposals and would regularly visit his college, which even led to
grievances raised with the college faculty. Vide a written
Complaint dt. 24.07.2023 with the Police Inspector, Karad Taluka
PS Satara, the father of the Appellant has alleged that the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 had been harassing his son & had
taken him to different lodges against his will and had threatened
to implicate him in false rape cases, if he refused to marry her. A
1
Non-Cognizable Offence Information Report ( NCR ) dt.
24.07.2023 had been registered pursuant to a threatening phone
call received on 22.07.2023 at 10:30 pm in the night, on the
Appellant’s mobile number from another mobile, allegedly
threatening that she will beat him by entering his house and
destroy his family.
5. Pursuant thereto that the FIR had been maliciously
registered against him and that no prima-facie case u/s 376,
376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506 IPC could be made out against him,
the Appellant sought anticipatory bail from the Additional
Sessions Judge, Karad, which was granted vide Order dt.
23.08.2023. The Additional Sessions Judge, while granting bail
to the Appellant made the following remarks:
“9. In this backdrop the point cannot be side lined
that the victim is matured to understand the
1
Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 5 of 13
significance and morality to which she is
consenting. The prosecutrix who is major lady gives
consent even on any of the aforesaid assumption
and she had sexual intercourse with
applicant/accused, she will be under all
circumstances and in all respect considered to be a
consenting party. This coupled with the fact that day
after day, week after week and month after month,
this arrangement continued until the day of
reckoning when she complained that promise of
marriage is not fulfill or that all this while she was
being fedup of this false assurance. Whatever be the
worth of promise or assurance, in law informant is
deemed to have given consent on her own accord as
far as sexual intercourse is concerned. When two
young male and female having attained the age of
discretion get attracted to each other and due to
emotional and passionate attachment succumbed to
temptation of sexual relationship then such mental
and voluntary participation does not come in the
way of granting bail. Hence, accused is entitled for
pre-arrest bail. The apprehension shown by
prosecution will be safeguarded by imposing
conditions…….”
6. The Appellant then preferred Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023
seeking quashing of the C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 & the
proceedings emanating therefrom before the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, and in the meanwhile, the investigation
culminated into a charge-sheet 26.09.2023 before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Karad.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 6 of 13
7. The learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the
High Court has erred in dismissing the Petition u/s 482 CrPC
insofar as the criminal proceedings in the present case constitute
an abuse of process of law, and is well within the categories as
2
contemplated by this Court in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal .
It is argued that the allegations of forcible sexual assault and
unnatural sex are highly improbable as there is no medical
evidence to adduce that forcible sexual assault and unnatural sex
had been committed upon the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 and
that allegations of rape are unsustainable as the relationship
between the parties being two mature adults was purely
consensual in nature. It is argued that the captioned FIR is
registered after a delay of 13 months from the date of the alleged
incident, which is considerable to cast doubt on the veracity of the
allegations made by the Complainant/Respondent no. 2,
especially when she sustained her relationship with the Appellant
since the alleged incident.
8. Having heard both sides in this case and after carefully
considering the material on record, the following attributes come
to the fore:
(a) Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as a true
and correct depiction of circumstances, it does not appear
2
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 7 of 13
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.
(b) The consent of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as
defined under section 90 IPC also cannot be said to have been
obtained under a misconception of fact. There is no material
to substantiate “inducement or misrepresentation” on the part
of the Appellant to secure consent for sexual relations without
having any intention of fulfilling said promise. Investigation
has also revealed that the Khulanama, was executed on
29.12.2022 which the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 had
obtained from her ex-husband. During this time, the parties
were already in a relationship and the alleged incident had
already taken place. It is inconceivable that the Complainant
had engaged in a physical relationship with the Appellant, on
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 8 of 13
the assurance of marriage, while she was already married to
someone else. Even otherwise, such promise to begin with
was illegal and unenforceable qua the Appellant.
(c) There is no evidence of coercion or threat of injury
to the Complainant/Respondent no. 2, to attract an offence
under section 506 IPC. It is improbable that there was any
threat caused to the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 by the
Appellant when all along the relationship was cordial, and it
was only when the Appellant graduated and left for his
hometown to Ahmednagar, the Complainant/Respondent
no. 2 became agitated. We also cannot ignore the conduct of
the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 in visiting the native
village of the Appellant without any intimation, which is also
unacceptable and reflects the agitated and unnerved state of
mind of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2. For the same
reason, the criminal prosecution against the Appellant herein
is probably with an underlying motive and disgruntled state
of mind.
(d) There is also no reasonable possibility that the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 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.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 9 of 13
9. 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
3
termed it a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a
false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section
376 IPC.
10. As demonstrated hereinabove, the ingredients of the
offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC are not established.
The present case squarely falls under categories enumerated in
Para 102(5) & 102(7) as identified by this Court in State of
Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (supra) for the exercise of powers u/s
482 CrPC by the High Court so as to prevent the abuse of process
of law. Para 102 reads as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we have given the following categories of
3
Naim Ahmed Vs State (NCT) of Delhi (2023) SCC Online SC 89.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 10 of 13
cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of
a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 11 of 13
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
11. 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.
12. 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,
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 12 of 13
Karad are quashed, and Appellant is discharged. Bail bonds, if
any, also stand cancelled.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
May 26, 2025
SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 Page 13 of 13