Relationship turning sour cannot be ground to book man for rape on false promise of marriage: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that a consensual relationship turning sour or partners getting separated cannot be a ground for initiation of rape case against the man on false promise of marriage [Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and ors.]..A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said that such cases not only burdens the Courts but also brings disrepute to an individual accused of such a heinous offence.The Court added that this Court has repeatedly expressed concern over the tendency of courts for treating every breach of promise to marry as a false promise and then prosecuting accused under section 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). "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," the Court said in its judgment of May 26..It was hearing a plea challenging a Bombay High Court order which had declined to quash proceedings against one Amol Bhagwan Nehul (appellant), who was booked under Sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape on the same woman), 377 (unnatural offences), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.The complainant in this case alleged that appellant, a 23-year-old student, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on the false assurance of marriage from June 2022 to July 2023.The respondent 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 since 2021. The appellant was residing as a tenant next door with three other men since May 2022.The complainant alleged that in July 2022, the appellant had entered the house of the complainant at night, and said that once she obtains divorce from her husband, he would marry her. On this pretext, he had sexual intercourse with her, it was alleged..Subsequently, when the appellant allegedly reduced interactions with her, she visited his native place and met his parents and relatives. As per the complainant, the parents of the appellant categorically denied chances marriage between them on the ground that they belonged to different religions. Following this, she registered a First Information Report (FIR) against him. This prompted the appellant to move an anticipatory bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge at Karad, which was granted.He then preferred a plea before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. However, the High Court declined to interfere prompting the accused to approach the Supreme Court..He contended that the High Court erred in dismissing his plea because the criminal proceedings in the present case constitute an abuse of process of law. He argued that the allegations of forcible sexual assault and unnatural sex are highly improbable as there was no medical evidence to adduce that forcible sexual assault and unnatural sex had been committed upon the complainant.It was further argued that the FIR is was 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..The Court observed that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as a true, it did not appear from the records that the consent of the complainant-woman for sexual intercourse was obtained against her will and merely on an assurance to marry."The appellant and the complainant were acquainted since 08.06.2022, and she herself admits that they interacted frequently and fell in love. The complainant 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 does not corroborate with her conduct," the Court noted..It further said there is no evidence of coercion or threat of injury to the respondent to attract an offence under section 506 IPC.The complainant was agitated with appellant's reduced interaction, which is why she visited his village without even intimating him. Therefore, the criminal prosecution against the appellant was probably with an underlying motive, the Court opined..Taking into consideration that the appellant is just 25 years of age and has a lifetime ahead of him, the Court observed that it would be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings against him.Accordingly, appeal against the Bombay High Court order was allowed and criminal proceedings against the appellant were quashed..Advocates Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Ankur Savadikar and Viraj M Parakh appeared for the petitioner.Advocates Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Amit Balasaheb Thorat and Nar Hari Singh appeared for the respondents. .[Read Judgment]