Ranjit Bhanudas Gaund vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 6458 Bom

                                                                   31APPLN2344.2020
                                           -1-

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2344 OF 2020

 Ranjit S/o Bhanudas Gaund                                              ...Applicant

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra                                                ...Respondent

                                  .....
 Mr. Shaikh Ashraf Patel, Advocate for the applicant
 Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for respondent No. 1
 Mr. Abid Shaikh, Advocate for respondent No. 2
                                  .....

                                    CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                   AND
                                            B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.

DATE : 19th APRIL, 2021

ORAL ORDER [Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.] : -

01. The applicant has put forth prayer clause 'B' and 'C' as

under : -

B. The C.R./F.I.R. No.I-0572/2020, registered at Taluka Jalna Police Station, Jalna, for the offences punishable U/sec.376, 420, 344, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian penal Code, on 11.10.2020 in pursuance of the complaint lodged by Suvarna D/o Panjabrao Deshmukh, R/o Ganeshnagar, Indewadi, Tq. & Dist. Jalna may please be quashed and set aside to the extent of the petitioner.

C. Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, further proceedings in pursuance of C.R./F.I.R. No.I-0572/2020, registered at Taluka Jalna Police Station, Jalna, for the offences punishable U/ sec.376, 420, 344, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on 11.10.2020 in pursuance of the complaint lodged by Suvarna D/o Panjabrao Deshmukh, R/o Ganeshnagar, Indewadi, Tq. & Dist. Jalna may please be stayed.

SG Punde, PA

31APPLN2344.2020

02. We have heard the Counsel for the respective sides, at

length.

03. The petitioner is an Advocate registered with the Bar

Council of Maharashtra and Goa, which fact has been suppressed

from this Court in so far as the pleadings in the memo of the petition

are concerned. It is the learned Prosecutor, who has pointed out to us

through the investigation papers, that the petitioner is an Advocate.

04. We find from the FIR filed by respondent no. 2 herein

that she had engaged this petitioner to represent her before the

Family Court at Jalna for seeking divorce from her husband, Jeevan

Dhondiram Pawar. The petitioner and the informant became friendly

and as their acquaintance grew, the petitioner told her that he is also

seeking divorce from his wife from the Family Court. Very soon, he

would be a divorcee and the informant would also be a divorcee. He,

therefore, enticed her to start residing with him, along with her son

born from the first marriage, on the ground that he would marry her.

It is set out in the FIR that the petitioner has forcibly and against the

wish and will of the informant, illegally confined her in between 4 th

January to 29th January of 2020 and ravished her. She then was

rendered pregnant and the petitioner refused to marry her.

SG Punde, PA

31APPLN2344.2020

05. It is further stated in the FIR that the petitioner started

physically beating her. She was detained in illegal confinement along

with her son, in a tin shed. On 10.10.2020, around 09:30 pm (which

is about 14 hours prior to the lodging of the FIR), the petitioner has

raped her and thereafter physically assaulted her and her son. She

succeeded in escaping from the tin shed in the morning and rushed to

the Police Station to register the FIR at 11:14 am on 11.10.2020.

06. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he

has married the informant and they have a girl child. He has relied

upon the joint affidavit filed by him along with the informant dated

26.02.2021.

07. We have perused the two affidavits filed by the informant

on 09.02.2021 and 26.02.2021. It is quite intriguing that the

informant now makes an allegation against the I.O. that she had

never intended to register a case u/s 376 of the IPC and that the I.O.

himself has registered such an offence.

08. The learned Advocate for the informant supports the

petitioner. Both rely upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The

SG Punde, PA

31APPLN2344.2020

State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) AIR (SC) 327 and an order

dated 12.04.2021 delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Ananda D. V Versus State & Anr., [Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395 of

2021], to buttress their contention that the petitioner and the

informant are now husband and wife, that there was no rape

committed by the petitioner and hence, the FIR can be quashed by

consent.

09. When called upon, the learned Advocate for the

petitioner and the learned Advocate for the informant submitted that

the petitioner is legally married with another lady, which is his first

marriage. The said marriage is not dissolved and there is no divorce

decree. The informant had filed HMP No. 261 of 2019, which is now

transferred to the concerned Court at Ambad, Dist. Jalna for seeking

divorce from her first husband. The said proceedings are pending.

10. As such, neither the petitioner nor the informant have

legally separated from their respective wife and husband. Both of

them have not obtained a divorce decree from the competent Court,

so as to legally marry each other. In these circumstances, we do not

find that the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Dhruvaram

Murlidhar Sonar (supra) and Ananda DV (supra) would assist the

SG Punde, PA

31APPLN2344.2020

petitioner. In Dr. Dhruvaram M. Sonar (supra), it was a consensual

sexual relationship between two adults. In the second case, the

alleged rapist and the informant had legally got married.

11. In the instant case, the petitioner, alleged rapist and the

informant, still have subsisting first marriages and, therefore, we

cannot recognize the alleged second marriage between the petitioner

and the informant. We find it quite serious that the petitioner being

an Advocate and representing the informant in her Divorce Petition

Proceedings, claims that the informant is his legally wedded second

wife. We find this to be unacceptable in law.

12. We also cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that after this

petitioner allegedly married the informant, the informant goes to the

extent of making an allegation against the I.O. that she never wanted

a case u/s 376 of the IPC to be registered against the petitioner and

that the I.O. has himself registered such a case. The falsity in the

statement of respondent no. 2 / informant is further exposed by the

fact that the FIR is registered in Marathi, read out to her and she has

signed on the said FIR in the Police Station. Her signature is in

English. As such, we find that the stand taken by the petitioner

herein, along with the informant, is only for self serving purposes and

SG Punde, PA

31APPLN2344.2020

this case, therefore, assumes the character of being a case of apparent

abuse of the process of law.

13. In view of the above, this application is dismissed.

        [ B. U. DEBADWAR ]                     [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ]
                JUDGE                                  JUDGE




 SG Punde, PA