Vaman Namdev Ghodake vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5881 Bom

 1108APL541.17-Judgment                                                                         1/4


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

            CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.   541  OF   2017


 APPLICANT :-                         Vaman   Namdev   Ghodake,   Aged   about   34
                                      years, Occ : Service, Resident of Sirsal Post,
                                      Lamajna,   Tq.   Ausa   Latur,   Maharashtra
                                      Presently residing at Kokanwadi Murtizapur,
                                      District Akola.  

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 NON-APPLICANTS :-               1) State   of   Maharashtra,   Through   Police
                                    Station   Officer,   Police   Station,   Murtizapur
                                    City, Taluka Murtizapur, District Akola. 

                                 2) Ku.Rushali Dilip Sule, Aged about 23 years,
                                    Occ: Service, R/o Nagthana, Police Station
                                    Murtizapur, 444107, District : Akola. 


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Mr. R. J. Mirza, counsel for the applicant.
       Mr. K. R. Lule, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.
                 Mr. Rashid Haq, counsel for the respondent No.2.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

DATED : 11.08.2017

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

The criminal application is admitted and heard finally

with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

1108APL541.17-Judgment 2/4

2. By this criminal application, the applicant seeks the

quashing of the first information report bearing No.108 of 2017 dated

17/03/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 376(b) and 506

of the Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the parties state that there was a

love affair between the applicant and the non-applicant No.2 for quite

some time and the parties had also established physical relationship. It

is stated that since the applicant was not ready to get married with the

non-applicant No.2, in a fit of rage the non-applicant No.2 had filed a

complaint against the applicant that the applicant was flirting with her

and had established a physical relationship with her with a promise to

marry her, but did not do so. It is stated that the animosity between the

parties does not exist, inasmuch as, the parties have buried the

differences against each other, specially because the non-applicant No.2

would be getting married to Ravindra Rajabhau Raut on 18/08/2017.

A marriage invitation card is annexed to the criminal application. It is

stated that in the interest of justice, it would be necessary to quash the

first information report registered against the applicant.

4. The parties are personally present in the court today. We

have talked to the non-applicant No.2 and asked her whether she

genuinely desires to withdraw the complaint against the applicant. The

1108APL541.17-Judgment 3/4

non-applicant No.2 has answered in the affirmative. She has further

stated that she would be getting married to Ravindra Raut on

18/08/2017 and hence she does not wish to be involved in the

proceedings that are pending against the applicant. She has stated that

even Ravindra Raut would not like the non-applicant No.2 to take part

in the trial which could be commenced against the applicant. The non-

applicant No.2 has requested the court that the first information report

registered against the applicant may be quashed and set aside.

5. It would be necessary to exercise the extraordinary

jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a

view to secure the ends of justice. If the non-applicant No.2 is not ready

to participate in the criminal trial that could be commenced against the

applicant, the trial may not result in the conviction of the applicant. It

appears that both the parties had entered into a physical relationship

with consent and since the applicant had refused to marry the non-

applicant No.2 at a subsequent point of time, the non-applicant No.2

had filed the complaint against the applicant in a fit of rage. With a

view to secure the ends of justice, it would be necessary to allow the

criminal application. Hence, by following the principles that are laid

down in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012)

10 SCC 303, it would be necessary to allow the criminal application.

  1108APL541.17-Judgment                                                                4/4




 6.               Hence,   the   criminal   application   is   allowed.     The   first

information report bearing No.108 of 2017, dated 17/03/2017

registered against the applicant by the Police Station Murtizapur (City),

District Akola for the offences punishable under sections 376(b) and

506 of the Penal Code and the further proceedings arising there from,

are quashed and set aside. Order accordingly.

                        JUDGE                                                JUDGE 



 KHUNTE