Syed Imran S/O. Syed Miran And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7212 Bom

                                        1                                      jg.apl 455.17.odt

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

                 Criminal Application (APL) No. 455 of 2017

(1) Syed Imran s/o Syed Miran, 
      Aged about 25 years, Occ labour
      r/o Sant Dyaneshvar Society, Behind 
      Tamanna Apartment, Zopadpatti, 
      Mankapur, Nagpur. 

(2) Sheshrao s/o Shamrao Landge
      Aged about 55 years, Occ. Watchman
      R/o Building No. 41, Mahada 
      Qaurter No. 642, Nari, 
      P.S., Jaripatka, Nagpur.                                             .... Applicants

      //  Versus //

(1) The State of Maharashtra
      Through Police Station Mankapur
      Nagpur. 

(2) Farina Anjum w/o Syed Imran 
      Aged about 17 years, Occ Housewife
      r/o c/o Sant Dyaneshvar Society, Behind 
      Tamanna Apartment, Zopadpatti, Nagpur.                 .... Respondents

Shri A. A. Syed, Advocate for the applicants 
Shri K. R. Lule, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1
Shri A. S. Ambatkar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2
                                                        
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                              M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
                                     DATE  : 15-09-2017.

JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal

application is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of

.....2/-

2 jg.apl 455.17.odt

the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By the present application, the applicants have challenged

the first information report lodged by the respondent no. 2. It is

submitted that the applicant no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 are husband

and wife. The respondent no. 2 lodged report alleging that she is minor

before the marriage and the applicant no. 1 did forcible sexual

intercourse with her and applicant no. 2 helped him. It is alleged that

the applicant no. 1 beat her. On the report of the respondent no. 2,

offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 109, 342, 506-B of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 17 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act are registered against the applicants vide Crime

No. 46/2017 by Police Station, Mankapur. It is submitted that after the

marriage, the respondent no. 2 resided with the applicant no. 1. Due to

some misunderstanding and on the instigation of her mother, the

respondent no. 2 lodged the report at Police Station. At last, it is

submitted that the applicants have not committed any crime, therefore,

prayed to quash and set aside the FIR and Charge-sheet No. 56/2017

pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

3. The respondent no. 2 is served. She along with her counsel

Shri Ambatkar present before the Court. Today, the applicant no. 1 and

the respondent no. 2 have stated before us that they are husband and

.....3/-

3 jg.apl 455.17.odt

wife. The respondent no. 2 has stated that due to misunderstanding, she

had lodged report against the applicants. She has stated that, she is

residing with her husband/applicant no. 1

4. Learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Syed has submitted

that prima facie the applicants have not committed any offence, hence

prayed to quash and set aside the FIR and charge-sheet filed in the Court

of District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

5. Perused the FIR/charge-sheet. As per the report, the

applicant no. 1 did sexual intercourse with the respondent no. 2. In the

report, she has stated that the applicant no. 1 married with her in the

month of March, 2017, therefore, it is clear that the respondent no. 2 is

the wife of the applicant no. 1.

6. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 2 was aged

about 16 years, hence offences punishable under the Prevention of

Children from Sexual Offences Act are registered. It is pertinent to note

that the applicant no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 belong to Muslim

religion.

7. After hearing the applicant no. 1 and the respondent no. 2, it

is clear that now the applicant no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 are

residing as husband and wife. The respondent no. 2 has stated before us

that due to misunderstanding, she lodged the report and now she do not

.....4/-

4 jg.apl 455.17.odt

want to prosecute the applicants, therefore, prayed to quash and set

aside the FIR/charge-sheet pending against the applicants.

8. Prima facie, report shows that the respondent no. 2 is the

wife of the applicant no. 1. Report itself shows that she along with her

mother went to the Police Station and lodged the report. The reason for

lodging the report is that there was some quarrel between the applicant

no. 1 and the respondent no. 2. Therefore, it is clear that the report was

lodged due to quarrel and not because of the earlier incident before the

marriage. Hence, first information report itself do not constitute any

offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 109, 342, 506-B of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 17 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported

in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, FIR No. 46/2017 is liable to be quashed and

set aside.

9. Hence, we allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (1).

Charge-sheet No. 56/2017 pending before the District and Sessions

Judge, Nagpur vide Crime No. 46/2017 registered by respondent no. 1,

Police Station, Mankapur, Nagpur is hereby quashed and set aside.

                      JUDGE                                          JUDGE
wasnik


                                                                                          ...../-