Bombay High Court
Dhiraj S/O. Pandurang Khatik vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 23 November, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
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
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
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
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
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]
7 apl111.17.odt
