Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Amol Bhagwan Nehul against the State of Maharashtra and another, setting aside the impugned order of the Bombay High Court which had dismissed his petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR No. 490/2023 and the consequent charge-sheet and proceedings in RCC No. 378/2023. The FIR was registered on 31 July 2023 at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara, for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The complainant alleged that the appellant, her neighbor, had forcibly sexual intercourse with her on the false assurance of marriage between June 2022 and July 2023. She claimed that despite her initial reluctance, the appellant repeatedly had sex with her on the promise of marriage, and also committed unnatural sex. The appellant, a 23-year-old agriculture student, denied the allegations, stating that the complainant, a married woman with a child, had approached him and that the relationship was consensual. He also pointed to a complaint by his father alleging harassment by the complainant. The Sessions Court granted him anticipatory bail, observing that the complainant was a consenting adult. The High Court, however, dismissed his quashing petition. The Supreme Court examined the factual matrix and found that the complainant's own narrative showed a consensual relationship lasting over a year, with multiple meetings and visits to lodges. The Court noted that the complainant was already married when the relationship began and obtained a divorce only later, making the promise of marriage from the inception illegal and unenforceable. There was no medical evidence to support allegations of forcible sexual assault or unnatural sex. The Court held that the consent was not obtained under a misconception of fact as there was no inducement or misrepresentation by the appellant. The delay of 13 months in lodging the FIR and the complainant's conduct in visiting the appellant's village without intimation indicated an agitated state of mind and a possible motive to implicate the appellant. The Court concluded that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process of law and quashed the FIR, charge-sheet, and all proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - Where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence and the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process, the High Court or Supreme Court may quash the proceedings. Held that the prolonged consensual relationship and lack of coercion made the case fit for quashing (Paras 8-10). B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Rape - Section 375 - Consent under Misconception of Fact - Section 90 - For consent to be vitiated on the ground of a false promise to marry, the promise must be false from the inception and the accused must have had no intention to marry. Held that where the parties were in a consensual relationship for over a year and the complainant was already married, the promise to marry was not the sole basis for consent (Paras 8-9). C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Unnatural Offences - Section 377 - Lack of Medical Evidence - In the absence of medical evidence supporting allegations of unnatural sex, and where the overall conduct of the complainant indicates consent, the charge under Section 377 is unsustainable. Held that no prima facie case was made out (Para 8). D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506 - Ingredients - To constitute criminal intimidation, there must be a threat of injury to the person, reputation, or property. Held that no such threat was established as the relationship was cordial throughout (Para 8). E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 - Observations on Consent - While granting anticipatory bail, the Sessions Court observed that the complainant, being a major, was a consenting party. Held that such observations, though not final, supported the view that the relationship was consensual (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 IPC against the appellant should be quashed on the ground that the relationship was consensual and the FIR was an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Bombay High Court dated 28.06.2024, and quashed FIR No. 490/2023 dated 31.07.2023, the charge-sheet dated 26.09.2023, and all proceedings in RCC No. 378/2023 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad.
Law Points
- Consent under misconception of fact
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC
- Ingredients of rape under Section 375 IPC
- Promise to marry and consent
- Delay in lodging FIR
- Abuse of process of law
