Shilpi Nama
On 26th May, 2025, the Supreme Court annulled criminal proceedings against a 23-year-old accused of rape, stating that a consensual relationship that deteriorates cannot serve as a basis for filing a rape charge. A panel of justices, BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, articulated in their ruling that such cases not only overload the court system but also tarnish the reputation of the accused individual.
The Supreme Court cautioned lower courts not to interpret every unfulfilled marriage promise as a false promise, as this could result in the prosecution of the accused for rape.” A consensual relationship that turns sour or partners drifting apart cannot justify the invocation of the State’s criminal justice system. Such actions not only burden the courts but also stain the identity of the individual accused of such a grave crime. This Court has repeatedly cautioned against the misuse of legal provisions and has deemed it misguided to consider every breach of promise to marry as a false promise, leading to prosecution under section 376 of the IPC,” the Court remarked.
The Apex Court was reviewing a petition that contested a ruling from the Bombay High Court, which refused to dismiss proceedings against the accused under sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape of the same woman), 377 (unnatural offenses), 504 (intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
The complainant was a married woman who accused a college student of raping her between June 2022 and July 2023 on the false promise of marriage. The complainant secured a Khulanama (an agreement for divorce by mutual consent) from her ex-husband and has been residing with her son at her parents’ home since 2021. She alleged that the accused engaged in sexual relations with her after assuring her of marriage following the divorce. When he began to withdraw and his parents objected to the union on the grounds of religious differences, she lodged a First Information Report (FIR). The accused, granted anticipatory bail, sought to quash the case, citing delayed reporting and lack of evidence. The Bombay High Court rejected his plea, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused, noting that even if the FIR allegations were true, there was no proof that the sexual relationship was non-consensual or solely based on a false promise of marriage. The Court observed that the complainant maintained a year-long relationship and met the accused willingly, including at lodges. It found no evidence of coercion or threats under Section 506 IPC and suggested her complaint may have stemmed from personal disappointment. The Court also highlighted the growing concern over false rape allegations in failed relationships and emphasized judicial caution in such matters.
Case Name: Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024
Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
