In a landmark judgment emphasizing the need for scrutiny of rape allegations stemming from consensual relationships, the Supreme Court of India in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025 INSC 782) quashed the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 376, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. These provisions now correspond to Sections 64, 352, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Section 377 of the IPC has since been repealed.
The complainant, a married woman, had accused a young man of rape on the ground of false promise of marriage. The Court ruled in favour of the accused, citing lack of evidence, prolonged consensual relationship, and the inherent improbability of the complainant’s version.
This article explores the factual matrix, legal arguments, judicial reasoning, and broader implications of the ruling, especially in the context of misuse of rape provisions and the role of consent under Indian law.
Background of the Case
Factual Matrix
The complainant, a married woman with a four-year-old child, lodged a criminal complaint in July 2023 alleging that between June 2022 and July 2023, the appellant—her younger neighbour and a B.Sc. Agriculture student—engaged in sexual relations with her on the false assurance of marriage. It was also alleged that he committed unnatural sex and later distanced himself, prompting the complaint.
She claimed that the promise to marry was repeatedly made even before she obtained a divorce (Khulanama) from her husband. The FIR also included instances of the appellant borrowing her car and money.
The accused, however, presented a starkly different picture—stating that the relationship was entirely consensual and that he was being harassed and threatened into marrying her. His father had lodged a non-cognizable complaint against the complainant prior to the FIR, citing threats and coercion.
Legal Proceedings and Bail
The appellant secured anticipatory bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, in August 2023. The court noted that the complainant was a major who maintained the relationship for more than a year and continued to meet the appellant even after the alleged incidents. It was stated that she consented knowingly, and there was no evidence that the consent was obtained through deception.
The appellant then moved the Bombay High Court to quash the FIR and the related criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS). The High Court, however, dismissed the petition, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Can consent to sexual activity be said to be vitiated solely based on an unfulfilled promise of marriage?
- Does a married woman’s claim that she believed in a promise of marriage carry the same legal standing as an unmarried woman’s in such cases?
- Can sustained physical and emotional intimacy over time still be viewed as rape under Section 376 IPC?
- Is there a case for malicious prosecution in this context?
Supreme Court’s Observations and Key Findings
In a reasoned and meticulous judgment, the Supreme Court bench led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The Court laid down several crucial findings that provide a benchmark for dealing with similar cases.
1. Nature of Relationship and Consent
The Court stated that even if the allegations in the FIR were taken at face value, they did not disclose that the complainant’s consent was vitiated by coercion or deceit. Rather, the two parties were in a mutually consensual relationship that spanned over a year.
The prosecutrix… is a mature lady and her consent was not obtained under any threat or pressure. The continued relationship over months suggests that her participation in the physical acts was voluntary.
The Court emphasised that continuing a relationship, including visiting lodges and having meals together, contradicts the assertion of non-consensual sex.
2. Promise of Marriage by a Married Woman: Unenforceable and Legally Invalid
Crucially, the complainant was still married when the alleged relationship began. The Court found it inconceivable that a legally married woman could be induced into sexual relations on a promise of marriage.
Even assuming such a promise was made, it would be unenforceable in law, being contrary to public policy and morality.
The divorce (Khulanama) was obtained by the complainant in December 2022, well after the relationship began. Thus, her legal incapacity to marry at the time of the promise rendered the alleged inducement moot.
3. Delay in Filing FIR and Lack of Medical Evidence
The Court was critical of the 23-day delay in filing the FIR after the last alleged incident, noting that there was no medical or forensic evidence to support claims of rape or unnatural sex. The delay, combined with a long-standing voluntary relationship, cast serious doubts on the credibility of the complaint.
The delay and absence of corroborative evidence render the allegations highly improbable.
4. No Prima Facie Case for Rape or Threats
The allegations of threats and coercion under Section 506 IPC (351 of the BNS) were also dismissed, as there was no material to support that the complainant was ever threatened into silence or submission.
Application of Bhajan Lal Principles
In quashing the FIR, the Supreme Court invoked the celebrated judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which laid down seven categories where criminal proceedings may be quashed:
- Allegations are absurd or inherently improbable.
- Proceedings are maliciously instituted with ulterior motives.
“this case squarely falls within Para 102 (5) and Para 102 (7) of the Bhajan Lal case.” Supreme Court Observes
The Court held that the FIR was a misuse of criminal law machinery to exert pressure on the appellant.
Precedents Cited by the Court
The Court cited the 2023 judgment in Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi) where it cautioned against treating every failed promise to marry as a case of rape:
“Treating every breach of promise as rape would dilute the sanctity of consent and overburden the judicial system.”
Other notable precedents include:
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013): The Court highlighted the importance of proving that the promise was false from inception.
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019): Emphasized that a breach of promise would constitute rape only if it can be proven that there was no intention to marry from the beginning.
Legal Implications of the Ruling
1. Preservation of the Integrity of Rape Laws
The judgment serves as a caution against frivolous invocation of rape charges in cases of consensual relationships that turn sour. It protects the criminal justice system from being misused as a tool of vengeance.
2. Equal Scrutiny Regardless of Gender
The judgment indicates a maturing of judicial attitude where women complainants are not automatically believed, especially in cases where their conduct contradicts their claims. It brings much-needed parity in the legal assessment of both male and female parties.
3. Limitations on the Concept of ‘False Promise’
This judgment narrows down what constitutes a “false promise” under Section 90 IPC (Section 28 BNS). Mere failure to fulfill a promise, especially without demonstrable deceit or intention to cheat, cannot be equated with inducement or fraud.
Highlights of the Judgment
Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed:
“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 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.”
Societal and Cultural Dimensions
This case brings to the forefront critical questions surrounding morality, societal norms, and the interplay between personal choices and the reach of criminal law:
- Can criminal law regulate consensual romantic relationships?
- Should mature individuals be free to make personal errors without facing criminal consequences?
- How do we distinguish emotional manipulation from a legally punishable offence?
Although the Court refrained from moral commentary, its ruling reflects an evolving legal philosophy—one that places a premium on individual autonomy and personal responsibility.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra is a landmark judgment that calls for a calibrated and cautious approach in cases where consensual relationships break down and are followed by criminal charges of rape. It reaffirms that:
- Consent must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable adult.
- A promise to marry made to a married woman cannot create a valid cause of action for rape.
- Prolonged consensual relationships, devoid of coercion or deceit, cannot later be criminalised based on emotional fallout.
At a time when the criminal justice system is already burdened, this judgment ensures that it is not weaponised for personal vengeance. However, it also reiterates the need for sensitivity and due diligence in genuine cases of exploitation. Justice, after all, must serve both truth and fairness.