LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/amol-bhagwan-nehul-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-20250526/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
26 May 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 2835 of 2025
Bench
B.V. Nagarathna, Satish Chandra Sharma
Citation
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 150 : 2025 INSC 782
Acts & Sections
CrPC IPC
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 7 S.C.R. 150 : 2025 INSC 782
Issue for consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition whereby the appellant sought quashing of criminal case against him that the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with the complainant on false promise of marriage.
Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of criminal case – Complainant alleged that the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on false promise of marriage – Complaint made and chargesheet filed against appellant u/ss.376, 376(2)(n), 504, 506 IPC – Appellant sought quashing of criminal case – High Court dismissed the petition – Correctness:

Held: It does not appear from the record that the consent of the complainant was obtained against her will and merely on an assurance to marry – Narrative of complainant does not corroborate with her conduct – Consent of complainant as defined u/s.90 IPC also cannot be said to have been obtained under a misconception of fact – No material to substantiate “inducement or misrepresentation” on the part of appellant to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise – Criminal prosecution against the appellant is probably with an underlying motive and disgruntled state of mind – No reasonable possibility that complainant or any woman being married before and having a child of four years, would continue to be deceived by the appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with an individual who has sexually assaulted and exploited her – Not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with – Consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State – Ingredients of the offence u/ss.376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC not established – Appellant is just 25 years of age, and has a lifetime ahead of him, thus, in the interest of justice, the proceedings quashed at this stage itself – Impugned judgment set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376, 376(2)(n), 504, 506. [Paras 8-12]

Keywords: Quashing of criminal case · Forcible sexual intercourse on false assurance of marriage · Unnatural sex · Consent obtained under misconception of fact · Inducement or misrepresentation · Promise · Coercion or threat of injury · Criminal prosecution with underlying motive and disgruntled state of mind · Sexual assault · Invoking criminal machinery of State · Blotting identity of individual accused of heinous offence · Prevent abuse of process of law · Interest of justice

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Satish Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This Appeal by special leave is directed against the Impugned Order dt. 28.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 whereby the Petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the Criminal Case C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 for offences punishable u/s 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC”) registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara qua the Appellant was dismissed. Vide an amendment to the Petition, the Appe
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →