Priti Tikaram Tembhurnikar And 3 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Rawanwadi ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10827 Bom

 Judgment                                   1                                  apl734.20.odt




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


                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 734/2020


 1]       Priti Tikaram Tembhurnikar,
          Aged about 27 years, Occ. Household,
          R/o. Kurhadi, Tah. Goregaon,
          District Gondia

 2]       Ashish Dhurandas Sahare,
          Aged about 33 years, Occ. Private Service,

 3]       Subhash Dhurandas Sahare,
          Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,

 4]       Dhurandas Rushilal Sahare,
          Aged about 60 years, Occ. Private Service

          Nos. 2 to 4 all are R/o. Village Sawari,
          Taluka & District Gondia
                                                                    .... APPLICANT(S)

                                    // VERSUS //

          State of Maharashtra,
          Through P.S.O., Rawanwadi,
          District Gondia
                                                                 .... NON-APPLICANT

  *******************************************************************
                  Shri M.V. Rai, Advocate for the applicant(s)
            Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for the non-applicant/State
  *******************************************************************

                           CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

AUGUST 11, 2021

JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

ANSARI

Judgment 2 apl734.20.odt

1] Heard.

 2]               RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.



 3]               By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the applicants have jointly requested for quashing and setting

aside the F.I.R. No. 10/2020 registered with the non-applicant - Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)(f), 417, 313,

323, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, charge-sheet and proceedings of

Sessions Case No. 70/2020 pending before the District Judge - 2, Gondia.

4] The first information report came to be registered against the

applicant nos. 2 to 4 with the accusations that the applicant no. 2 on the

promise of marriage with the applicant no. 1 had sexual intercourse with the

applicant no. 1. Thereafter, the applicant no. 2 refused to marry with the

applicant no. 1 and therefore the applicant no. 1 lodged report against the

applicant nos. 2 to 4. The Investigating Agency carried out the investigation

and filed charge-sheet against the applicant nos. 2 to 4. During the pendency

of the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge, the applicants have

arrived at settlement.

 ANSARI




  Judgment                                   3                                apl734.20.odt




 5]               Insofar as the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal

Code is concerned, though it is a serious offence, but at this stage it would be

profitable to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & another reported in AIR 2014

SCW 2065. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court makes it clear that the

Court cannot declare to quash the first information report merely because the

first information report incorporates a particular provision which is a serious

offence or an offence against the society. The Court has to make an

endeavour to find out whether the first information report indeed discloses

the ingredients of such offence and the Court can accept the statement and

quash the first information report / charge-sheet after the Court is of the

opinion that such an offence is unnecessarily incorporated in the first

information report / charge-sheet. From perusal of the first information

report and the material produced in the form of charge-sheet, we are

satisfied that the ingredients of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian

Penal Code are not fulfilled.

6] The material on record and the accusations against the applicant

no. 2 are not to the effect that at the inception of relationship, there was

false promise of marriage made by the applicant no. 2 to the applicant no. 1.

In the present case, at the most, it can be said that there was breach of

promise made by the applicant no. 2 to the applicant no. 1. The issue in the

ANSARI

Judgment 4 apl734.20.odt

present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and

another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para

no. 16 of the said judgment has clearly laid down that in case of offence of

sexual intercourse based on promise of marriage, it is necessary to allege that

at the inception of relationship, the accused never intended to perform

marriage. It is further held that mere breach of promise is not sufficient to

attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 376(2) of the Indian

Penal Code. From the allegations in the first information report and the

material produced in the form of charge-sheet, we do not find any material

on record which shows that the applicant no. 2, at the inception of

relationship, had made false promise of marriage to the applicant no. 1.

There is no material produced on record to show that the ingredients of the

offences alleged against the applicant nos. 3 & 4 are fulfilled. Since the

applicants have mutually resolved their dispute, the chances of conviction are

bleak.

7] Hence, the following order:-

F.I.R. No. 10/2020 dated 16/01/2020 registered with the non-

applicant - Police Station and consequent charge-sheet and

proceedings i.e. Sessions Case No. 70/2020 pending before the

ANSARI

Judgment 5 apl734.20.odt

District Judge - 2, Gondia against the applicant nos. 2 to 4

for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)(f), 417,

313, 323, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code are quashed and

set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending

application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

                   (JUDGE)                                      (JUDGE)




 ANSARI