Atish Dalitkumar Tapase And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10603 Bom

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 10603 Bom
Judgement Date : 9 August, 2021

Bombay High Court

Atish Dalitkumar Tapase And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 August, 2021

Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni

1 criwp 637.2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.637 OF 2021

ATISH DALITKUMAR TAPASE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Shinde Mahesh P
APP for Respondents : Mr. R V Dasalkar
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Shekade S.E.
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
Dated: August 09, 2021
...
PER COURT :-

1. Heard fnally with consent the consent of the

parties at admission stage.

2. The petitioners are the accused persons in

connection with the crime no.I-113 of 2021 registered

with Hingoli City Police Station, District Hingoli for the

offences punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 354, 294,

506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This

application is fled for quashing the said FIR on the

ground that parties have arrived at an amicable

settlement.

aaa/-

::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 23:29:50 :::
2 criwp 637.2021.odt

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that, initially, Crime was registered for the

offences punishable under sections 354, 294, 506 r/w

34 of IPC, however, on the basis of the supplementary

statement of the informant, section 376 (2)(n) came to be

added. The learned counsel submits that, those

allegations have been made against petitioner no.1-Atish

Tapase for having committed rape on the informant

repeatedly by giving false promise of marriage. Learned

counsel submits that, due to intervention of the well

wishers, near relatives and common friends, they have

arrived at amicable settlement.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2

submits that, respondent no.2 has fled her affdavit-in-

reply. Learned counsel submits that, the petitioners'

family and family of respondent no.2 are well acquainted

with each other since long and they are resident of the

same locality. They have decided to maintain cordial

relations in future. Learned counsel submits that, FIR

was lodged on account of some misunderstanding. They

aaa/-

::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 23:29:50 :::
3 criwp 637.2021.odt

have decided to settle the dispute due to intervention of

well- wishers, near relatives and common friends. They

wanted to live with peace in future.

5. Learned A.P.P. has placed his reliance on a case

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303, wherein in

paragraph no.48 of the judgment, the Supreme Court

has framed guidelines for quashing of the FIR on the

basis of the settlement between the parties. Learned

APP submits that the clause 'E' of the said guidelines is

relevant for the discussion. Learned APP submits that,

in terms of clause 'E' of the said guidelines, the heinous

offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case

involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in

the prohibited category.

6. We have carefully gone through the supplementary

statement of the informant. The informant has stated in

her supplementary statement that there was love affair

between herself and petitioner no.1 since last two years

prior to fling of the complaint and, petitioner no.1 took

aaa/-

::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 23:29:50 :::
4 criwp 637.2021.odt

her at various places and performed the intercourse

with her by giving her promise of marriage. In the given

set of allegations, possibility of consensual relations

cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, the informant is a

major girl. She is in private employment. She was

knowing the consequences of her act.

7. In a case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

another (supra), relied upon by the learned APP, in

clause 'e', the Supreme Court has mentioned prohibited

category which includes commission of rape. Clause 'e'

of the said guidelines framed by the Supreme Court,

which is relevant for the discussion is reproduced herein

below :-

21.
a. ...............
b. ...............
c. ...............
d. ...............

"e. The offences against human body other than murder and
culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of
transaction would fall in the category where
compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences
like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-
cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited
category. Offences committed by Public Servants
purporting to act in that capacity as also offences against
public servant while the victims are acting in the

aaa/-

::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 23:29:50 :::
5 criwp 637.2021.odt

discharge of their duty must remain non-compoundable.
Offences against the State enshrined in Chapter-VII
(relating to army, navy and air force) must remain non-
compoundable."

8. We have carefully gone through clause 'e' of the

said guidelines. It is observed by the Supreme Court

that highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-

cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited

category.

9. In the instant case, though there are allegations

against petitioner no.1 for having committed intercourse

with the informant on various occasions by giving false

promise of marriage, as observed by us, possibility of

consensual relations cannot be ruled out. As such,

there are no clear-cut allegations about commission of

rape. It further appears that, in order to maintain