The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justices G. A. Sanap and A.S. Chandurkar opined that if the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused he cannot be made to undergo the rigmarole of the criminal trial.
Facts
The FIR was registered based on the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 against the applicant/accused. She stated in the report that she and the applicant got engaged. The applicant had sexual intercourse with her against her consent and under the pretext that she would be her wife after few days. After this incident, the applicant started neglecting and stopped interacting with her. The applicant with his family members and friends came to her house and told that she is addicted to liquor while her mental condition is such that she could not be shown pity. and refused to perform the marriage. It is stated that the applicant/accused under the false promise to marry, established the sexual relations with her. He refused to marry her and cheated her. Based on this report, crime as above, was registered.
Contentions Made
Appellant: After engagement, the applicant found that there was compatibility issue between them. On 15/06/2021, the applicant received call on his mobile phone from unknown phone number and the caller threatened him that he should call off the marriage, else they will see that his marriage is broken. The report of the said incident was lodged on 22/06/2021. The non-applicant No.2 on being confronted, gave evasive reply. The person making phone call was close friend of non-applicant No.2. Various meetings were held between two families. The family members of the non-applicant No.2 made demand of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lakhs) for calling off the marriage. The applicant and his family members did not succumb to the illegal demand. No case has been made out based on the report to sustain the prosecution against the applicant. No offence is made out u/s 376 or 417 of the IPC. The applicant, therefore, prayed for quashing the FIR.
Respondent: The facts stated by the non-applicant No.2 in the FIR were reiterated. Besides, it is contended that the investigation conducted so far reveals the complicity of the applicant/accused in the commission of crime. The Medical Officer has stated that the sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. There is prima facie material to establish the involvement of the applicant in crime.
The non-applicant No.2 filed reply and opposed the application by stating that after having sexual intercourse on the false promise to marry. Her consent was obtained under false promise. The detailed complaint was later made to A.P.I., Umred Police Station (Rural) on 24/09/2021. The applicant’s friend by name Nitin Yenurkar made phone calls to her which she recorded and its transcript was annexed.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“It is pertinent to mention that while considering the application made by the accused for quashing the First Information Report if the Court finds that the exercise of venturing into appreciation of the evidence would be warranted to decide the application one way or the other, in our view, the same would be indicator to conclude that the question falls outside the scope of exercise of discretion by the Court.”
It was also observed that:
“In our opinion, this conduct of the applicant / accused coupled with the relevant facts narrated in the First Information Report would indicate that the applicant under the guise of false promise to marry in future with the non-applicant No.2 established sexual intercourse with the non-applicant No.2. Immediately after establishing the sexual relations, in the night of 01/06/2021 and 02/06/2021, he changed his mind and started avoiding the non-applicant No.2. In our view, all these facts would not weigh in favour in the case of applicant/accused. In this case, the facts stated in the First Information Report and the conduct of the applicant would clearly show that the intention and the motive of the applicant was sinister.”
Judgment
The Bench was not inclined to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 of the CrPC. The application was, therefore, dismissed..
Picture Source :
