AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL …APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
Date of order:-26.05.2025
Introduction
The case revolves around a criminal appeal filed by Amol Bhagwan Nehul against the State of Maharashtra and a complainant (Respondent No. 2). The appeal challenges the dismissal of a petition seeking to quash a criminal case registered under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant, a married woman who had obtained a Khulanama (divorce) from her ex-husband, accused Amol of raping her under the false promise of marriage.
Background of the Case
The complainant and Amol, a 23-year-old agriculture student, became neighbors in 2022. They developed a friendship that later turned into a romantic relationship. The complainant alleged that Amol forcibly had sexual intercourse with her multiple times under the false assurance of marriage. She also accused him of unnatural sex, verbal abuse, and criminal intimidation. The FIR was filed in July 2023, nearly 13 months after the alleged incidents began.
Amol’s Defense
Amol denied all allegations, claiming the relationship was consensual. He argued that the complainant had approached him first and even harassed him when he tried to distance himself. His father filed a complaint alleging that the complainant had threatened to implicate Amol in false rape cases if he refused to marry her. Amol was granted anticipatory bail, with the court noting that the complainant, as a mature adult, had consented to the relationship.
High Court’s Decision
The High Court dismissed Amol’s petition to quash the FIR, leading him to appeal to the Supreme Court. His counsel argued that the allegations were improbable, lacked medical evidence, and were filed with a delay, indicating mala fide intentions. They cited the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case to assert that the proceedings were an abuse of the legal process.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined the facts and noted several inconsistencies:
- The complainant admitted to a consensual relationship and continued interacting with Amol for over a year.
- There was no evidence of coercion or misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC.
- The complainant was already married during part of the alleged relationship, making the promise of marriage legally unenforceable.
- The delay in filing the FIR and the complainant’s conduct suggested ulterior motives.
Conclusion and Judgment
The Court concluded that the case fell under categories 5 and 7 of the Bhajan Lal guidelines, warranting quashing of the proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process. It emphasized that a consensual relationship turning sour cannot justify invoking criminal charges. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings, and discharged Amol, noting his young age and the need to protect him from an unjust trial.
Final Order
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, quashed the criminal case, and canceled Amol’s bail bonds. The judgment underscored the importance of distinguishing between consensual relationships and criminal offenses to prevent misuse of the legal system.
About the Author: Neeraj Gogia, Advocate, 9891800100, specializing in criminal law, bail applications, criminal trial etc. This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
© 2025 [Gogia crime briefs]. All rights reserved.
#lexeagle #gogiacrimebriefs #rape #highcourt #supremecourt #india #delhi #alleged #consent #married #man #husband #wife