1 apl885.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.885 of 2016
1. Narendra s/o. Chhabilal Patle,
Aged about 27 years, Occ.
Private Service, r/o. Wanadongri,
Hingna Road, District Nagpur.
2. Chhabilal s/o. Chaitram Bisen,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Private
Service, r/o. Wanadongri,
Hingna Road, District Nagpur.
3. Surendra s/o. Chhabilal Patle,
Aged about 27 years, Occ. Private
Service, r/o. Village Navargaon,
Tq. Tirora, District Gondia. .......... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1.State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Tirora, District
Gondia.
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:52:29 :::
2 apl885.16.odt
2. Sau. Rekha @ Pooja w/o. Sanjay Katare,
Aged about 20 years, Occ. Household,
r/o. Plot No.32, Behind Ram Mandir,
Abha Nagar, Pardi, Bhawani Nagar,
Nagpur. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.K.P.Sadavarte, Advocate for Applicants.
Mrs.Sangita Jachak, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
Ms S.B.Saikhede, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No.2.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 13th December, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. Applicants have challenged First Information Report lodged by respondent no.2 bearing Crime No.319 of 2016 registered by Police Station, Tiroda on 8.10.2016 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(i)(j)(n) and Section 109 of the Indian Penal ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:52:29 ::: 3 apl885.16.odt Code r/w. Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the POSCO Act').
3. It is submitted that applicant no.2 is brother-in-law of applicant no.1. Respondent no.2 is daughter of maternal aunt of applicant no.1. Prior to her marriage, she was residing with her mother and father at Thanegaon.
4. A suitable proposal came for the respondent from Pardi locality of Nagpur. Respondent no.2 was shown to Sanjay Katare in the house of applicants. Her marriage was settled with Sanjay Katare in the month of July, 2016. After the marriage of respondent no.2, she always used to visit to the house of applicants and making allegations that they have not shown suitable match to her. On 12.4.2016, respondent no.2 came to the house of applicants and started quarrelling. She threatened and shouted upon applicant no.2 and his family members. Applicant no.2 Chhabilal lodged report in Police Station, MIDC against respondent no.2 and her husband on 13.4.2016. As a counter blast, respondent no.2 lodged report against the applicant on 8.10.2016 making false allegation against applicants Surendra Chhabilal Patale and Narendra Chhabilal Patale that they ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:52:29 ::: 4 apl885.16.odt had exploited her physically. They were doing sexual intercourse with her from the year 2009 till her marriage. On her report, crime is registered against the applicants. It is submitted that the report lodged by her is nothing but counter blast to the report lodged against respondent no.2 and her husband. Since 2009, she did not make any complaint against the applicants. Therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no.2.
5. Heard Mr.K.P.Sadavarte, learned Counsel for the applicants, Mrs. Sangita Jachak, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1/State and Ms S.B.Saikhede, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. Perused report lodged by respondent no.2. From the perusal of report, it is clear that she made allegations against applicants Surendra and Narendra alleging that, from 15.5.2009 till two days before her marriage in the year 2015, they had sexual relations with her. It is pertinent to note that mother of applicants is her maternal aunt. She did not lodge any report against any of the applicants before lodging report by the applicants on 13.4.2016.
6. Perused the report dt.13.4.2016 registered against the husband of respondent no.2. It is alleged in the report that behaviour ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:52:29 ::: 5 apl885.16.odt of respondent no.2 is not proper. Husband of respondent no.2 quarrelled with the applicants saying that they have falsely given information about respondent no.2 and performed her marriage with Sanjay Katare/accused. It is alleged in the report dt.13.4.2016 that husband of respondent no.2 quarreled with the applicant and beat complainant Chhabilal.
7. After lodging the report against husband of respondent no.2, respondent no.2 lodged report against the applicants on 8.10.2016. From the perusal of the report lodged by respondent no.2, it is clear that she made allegations against applicant Surendra and Narendra that they did sexual intercourse with her from time to time from the year 2009 till 2015. It is pertinent to note that, in such a long period, she did not lodge any report against the applicants. It is apparent that she lodged report against the applicants only because applicant Chhabilal lodged report against her husband on 13.4.2016. After the gap of six months, she lodged report against the applicants.
8. From the face value of report, it appears that the offences alleged against the applicants are not made out. Hence, in ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:52:29 ::: 6 apl885.16.odt view of Judgment reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , State of Haryana .vs. Bhajan Lal, the report lodged by respondent no.2 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order.
// ORDER // The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i) of the Criminal Application.
We quash and set aside the F.I.R. bearing Crime No.319 of 2016 registered by Police Station, Tiroda on 8.10.2016 for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(f)(i)(j)(n) and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
No order as to costs.
Fees of Ms S.B.Saikhede, Advocate for Respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs.1,500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal] ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:52:29 ::: 7 apl885.16.odt ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:52:29 :::