Sarita Mahipalsingh Tapuha vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5678 Bom

 0708CRI.WP202.17-Judgment                                                                      1/4


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.  202  OF    2017


 PETITIONER :-                        Sarita Mahipalsingh Tapaha, Aged about 30
                                      years,   Occ:   Service,   R/o   Ganesh   Nagar,
                                      Tukumb, Chandrapur. 

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENT :-                        State   of   Maharashtra,   Through   Police
                                      Station   Officer,   Police   Station   Ramnagar,
                                      Chandrapur,   Tahsil   and   District   :
                                      Chandrapur. 


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Mr.V.R.Thote, counsel for the petitioner.
       Mr. A.M.Deshpande, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    M. G. GIRATKAR
                                                                   ,   JJ.

DATED : 07.08.2017

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ

petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of

the First Information Report No.97 of 2016, registered in the Police

Station Ramnagar, Chandrapur against Yogesh Ramchandra

0708CRI.WP202.17-Judgment 2/4

Chandanshiv for the offences punishable under sections 276 (2)(j), 417

and 506 of the Penal Code.

3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and Yogesh had

an affair when they were prosecuting their studies for appearing at the

examination, conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission

and at the relevant time, they studied together at K. Sagar Library,

Pune. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner was on friendly

terms with Yogesh and both of them were courting each other for a long

time with an intention to marry. According to the petitioner, there was

physical relationship between the parties during the courting. It is

stated that since Yogesh backed out from his promise of marriage, the

petitioner, with a view to pressurize Yogesh filed a report against

Yogesh for the offences punishable under sections 376, 417 and 506 of

the Penal Code in a fit of anger. It is stated that the trial has

commenced against Yogesh. It is stated that the petitioner is happily

married to Kunal Rode and the necessary documents in support of the

marriage with Kunal Rode are placed on record. According to the

petitioner, the petitioner has conceived and in the circumstances of the

case, since the petitioner's husband also does not like that the petitioner

should have some involvement in the criminal trial that is pending

against Yogesh, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is stated that

0708CRI.WP202.17-Judgment 3/4

in the circumstances of the case, with a view to secure the ends of

justice, it would be necessary to quash First Information Report No.97

of 2016, lodged against Yogesh for the offences punishable under

sections 376(2)(j), 417 and 506 of the Penal Code, registered at Police

Station Ramnagar, Chandrapur.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that the

offence registered against Yogesh is a serious offence and in the

circumstances of the case, merely because the petitioner is married to

Kunal Rode, it would not be proper to quash the first information

report. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought for the

dismissal of the writ petition.

5. We have perused the documents annexed to the writ

petition, specially the marriage invitation card and the photographs

showing that the petitioner is married to Kunal Rode. It appears that

the petitioner has conceived and in this background, the petitioner is

not willing to prosecute the matter against Yogesh. At the relevant time,

since Yogesh had backed out from his promise, the petitioner has filed

the first information report against Yogesh in a fit of anger. We find that

the petitioner is now remorseful and sorry for having filed the first

information report against Yogesh. In the peculiar circumstances of the

0708CRI.WP202.17-Judgment 4/4

case, it would be necessary to quash the first information report,

specially when the trial cannot result in the conviction of Yogesh, as the

petitioner is not ready to prosecute the matter against him. We find that

the physical relationship between the petitioner and Yogesh could be

consensual and as a result of the intimacy between them. In the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case, by relying on the judgment,

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab), it

would be necessary to quash the first information report and allow the

writ petition, with a view to secure the ends of justice.

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is

allowed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we quash

the First Information Report No.97 of 2016 registered at Police Station

Ramnagar, Chandrapur for the offences punishable under sections

376(2)(j), 417 and 506 of the Penal Code as also the charge-sheet and

the proceedings in the Sessions Trial No.18 of 2017. Rule is made

absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                        JUDGE                                                JUDGE 


 KHUNTE