Bombay High Court
Shri. Narendra S/O. Chhabilal ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 13 December, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
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
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
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
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
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]
7 apl885.16.odt
