The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court comprising of Satish Chandra Sharma, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. has once again reiterated that an FIR under section 376(2)(n) IPC, 1860, which is now section 69 of the BNS, 2023 is not maintainable once it is found that the FIR was a result of the relationship gone sour between the parties. While hearing the plea against order of the Bombay High Court wherein the petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR under sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 IPC, was dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that this was a not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The Appellant, Amol Bhagwan Nehul, was 23-year old student residing as a tenant in Kalegaon, Karad, District Satara.
- The Complainant next door, a divorcee with a 4-year old son, resided next door.
- The two developed a relationship starting on 08.06.2022, which allegedly became romantic and physical.
- The Complainant alleged that the Appellant had forcible sexual inter-course with her on false promise of marriage, committed unnatural sex, borrowed money and used her car. It is further alleged that she ignored her after July 2023 when he moved back to his hometown, Ahmednagar.
- The Complainant lodged FIR under section 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 506, 504 IPC.
- The Appellant, on the other hand, alleged that the relationship was consensual and alleged harassment by the Complainant. His father had filed a complaint about threats made by her.
- The Appellant had filed a petition for quashing of the FIR before the Bombay High Court which was dismissed. Hence, the Appellant approached the Hon’ble Apex Court.
ISSUES INVOLVED:
- Whether the allegations in the FIR make out a prima facie case under Sections 376, 377, 504, 506 IPC?
- Whether the Complaint was an abuse of the process of law and deserved to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC?
- Whether the relationship was consensual and if the allegations stemmed from a disgruntled emotional relationship?
STATUTES INVOLVED:
- Section 376 and Section 376(2)(n) IPC: rape and repeated rape.
- Section 377 IPC- Unnatural Offences.
- Section 504 IPC- intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.
- Section 482 CrPC- inherent powers of High Court to prevent abuse of process.
- Section 90 IPC- consent given under misconception.
JUDGMENTS REFERRED
- State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal1: laid down categories where FIRs can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
- Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi)2: warning against misusing rape provisions in consensual relationship breakdowns.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
- Consent was not under misconception as defined under Section 90 IPC.
- The Complainant’s continued relationship with the appellant, including staying in lodges and using her car, belied the narrative of coercion.
- The delay in lodging the FIR (23 days) and the lack of medical evidence supported the inference of fabricated charges.
- The relationship was between two consenting adults; thus, criminal prosecution on a later refusal to marry was unsustainable.
- The case falls under Categories 5 and 7of Bhajan Lal i.e. where allegations are improbable and proceedings appear malicious.
OBITER DICTUM:
- Not all failures to fulfil a promise of marriage amount to rape.
- Courts must be cautious about the weaponization of rape laws in personal relationships.
- Preventing such misuse is necessary to protect the dignity of both men and women, and to conserve judicial resources.
DECISION:
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and all criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
- The order of the Bombay High Court was set aside.
- The Appellant was discharged and bail bonds cancelled.