1 apl111.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.111 OF 2017
Dhiraj s/o. Pandurang Khatik,
Aged 32 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Sant Tukdoji Ward, Near
LIC Office, Bhandara, Tq.
and District Bhandara. .......... APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Office,
Bhandara, Tq. and District
Bhandara.
2. Ku. Priti Bhaurao Bhaladhare,
Aged 33 years, Occ. Household,
r/o. Sant Tukdoji Ward, Behind
LIC Office, Bhandara, Tq. and
District Bhandara. .......... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:50 :::
2 apl111.17.odt
____________________________________________________________
Mr.U.P.Dhoble, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.A.M.Deshpande, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr.I.S.Charlewar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
____________________________________________________________
*******
Date of reserving the Judgment : 20.11.2017.
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 23.11.2017.
*******
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
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. By this Criminal Application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside First Information Report No.337 of 2016, dt. 22.12.2016 registered with Police Station, Bhandara by respondent no.2. It is submitted that the applicant is working as a teacher in Nanaji Joshi School at Shahpur, District Bhandara. Respondent No.2 is residing with her mother and was pursuing her education in B.A. In the year 2007, applicant and respondent no.2 became friends and ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:50 ::: 3 apl111.17.odt their friendship gloom into love relations. At that time, applicant was doing his B.Ed. at Lakhni. They used to be in contact regularly on phone and many-a-times they used to go for outing. Respondent no.2 alleged in the report that applicant used to pursue the respondent no.2 for physical relationship. Initially, respondent no.2 did not accede. It is further alleged that after the applicant promised to marry, she agreed for physical relationship. She has further alleged in the report that their relationship was not known to any of the family members either of the applicant or respondent no.2. On 12.5.2016 and 15.5.2016, applicant called her at the house of one of his friends at Bhandara. His friend was out of town. Applicant and respondent no.2 halted there for night and established physical relationship. She lodged report when she came to know that the applicant is going to perform marriage with another girl. It is submitted that physical relations between the applicant and respondent no.2 were established with full consent and knowledge of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 was well aware of the fact that she was establishing physical relationship and the consequence thereof, in spite of fact that they both belong to different caste. Complaint is lodged by respondent no.2 because marriage between ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:50 ::: 4 apl111.17.odt applicant and respondent no.2 could not take place because they are from different caste.
3. It is submitted that the First Information Report even if accepted at it's face value does not make out any offence against the applicant. It is gross abuse of due process of law. It is further submitted that perusal of the report lodged by respondent no.2 clearly shows that it does not make out any offence and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. The respondents have opposed the contention of applicant.
5. Heard Mr.U.P.Dable, learned Counsel for the applicant. He has pointed out report lodged by respondent no.2 and submitted that the report itself shows that she was major at the time of first incident, as alleged. At the time of lodging report, respondent no.2 was aged about 32 years. She has stated in her report that since last ten years she had love relations with the applicant. This itself shows that prima facie no offence is made out and therefore, report lodged by respondent no.2 is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:50 ::: 5 apl111.17.odt of his submission, the learned Counsel has pointed out the Judgment in Criminal Application (APL) No.446 of 2015 delivered by this Court, to which one of us (M.G.Giratkar, J) is a party.
6. Heard learned A.P.P. Mr.A.M.Deshpande for respondent no.1 and Mr.I.S.Charlewar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. They have supported registration of F.I.R. against the applicant. Learned Counsel Mr.Charlewar has submitted that sexual relations under the promise of marriage amounts to rape. Hence, the application is liable to be rejected.
7. From the perusal of the report, it is clear that respondent no.2 was major before 10 years. As per her report, since last ten years she had love relations with the applicant. Report itself shows that whatever physical relations took place between applicant and respondent no.2 were with her consent. Since last ten years, she did not lodge any report against the applicant. In the last para of the report, respondent no.2 has stated that the applicant established love relationship since last ten years and did sexual intercourse with her and now he is going to marry with another girl. This itself shows that the main cause of lodging report is engagement of applicant ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:50 ::: 6 apl111.17.odt with another girl. From the face value of the report, the offence lodged against the applicant is not made out. Hence, in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , State of Haryana .vs. Bhajan Lal, the F.I.R. 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 clauses (i) and (ii) of the application.
F.I.R. No.337 of 2016, dt.22.12.2016 registered with Police Station, Bhandara by respondent no.1 is hereby quashed and set aside.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal] ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:50 ::: 7 apl111.17.odt ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:50 :::