Bombay High Court
Rahul S/O Arjunrao Vaidya And ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Rana ... on 14 December, 2021
Bench: M.S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 8-apl-1336-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1336 OF 2021
Rahul S/o Arjunrao Vaidya and another
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., Rana Pratap Nagar, P.S., Nagpur and another
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Shri Ateeb A. Syed, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri M.J. Khan, APP for the non-applicants/State.
CORAM: M.S. SONAK AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED: 14th DECEMBER, 2021
Heard Shri A.A. Syed, learned counsel for the
applicants, and Shri M.J. Khan learned APP for the
non-applicants/State.
2. According to us, the very filing of this
application amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
3. Applicant No.1-Rahul had instituted Criminal
Application (APL) No.492 of 2021 before us seeking
quashing of this very First Information Report (F.I.R.)
in terms of which he was charged for the offenses
punishable under Sections 376, 417, and 497 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3(1)(w)(i)
C.L.Dhakate
2 8-apl-1336-21.odt
(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act).
4. Learned Counsel for the applicants has placed on
record our judgment dated 22.11.2021 passed in
Criminal Application (APL) No.492/2021(Rahul
Vaidya vs State of Maharashtra and others) disposing of
Rahul's challenge. After a detailed hearing and
consideration, we partly allowed the said criminal
application and quashed the FIR in so far as it pertained
to the registration of offense punishable under Section
497 of the IPC. This was mainly because the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, in the case of Joseph Shine Vs.
Union of India [AIR 2018 SC 4898] had declared the
provision of Section 497 of I.P.C. ultra vires and as
unconstitutional.
5. In so far as, offenses under Sections 417 and 376
of the IPC are concerned, we held that in this case, the
allegations in the FIR made out a case of false promises
by Rahul thereby inducing Pranita to consent to sexual
relations. There was material on record to show that
Rahul was already married and Pranita in her complaint
alleged that this fact was never made known to her.
Besides, we found that there are allegations made out
under the Atrocities Act. For these reasons, we declined
to quash the FIR in so far as it pertained to the
C.L.Dhakate
3 8-apl-1336-21.odt
provisions of Sections 376 and 417 of the IPC and the
Atrocities Act.
6. Now, Rahul and Pranita have filed a joint
application seeking quashing of the FIR. They also filed
a joint affidavit in which Pranita has stated that she is
not interested in proceeding with this matter. The
affidavit also states that the complaint was filed due to
misunderstanding and out of rage.
7. According to us, both Rahul and Pranita, cannot
abuse the legal process in this manner. Now, Pranita,
for the reasons best known to her, after so many months
seeks to explain that the complaints were filed due to
misunderstanding and out of rage. In this case, there is
an allegation of an offense punishable under Section
376 of IPC, and such an offense, cannot, under all
circumstances be regarded as a purely private or a
personal offense directed against the alleged victim.
Such an offense is an offense against society itself.
8. Based upon such affidavit of settlement, we do
not think that the FIR is required to be quashed. We
think it pertinent to record that this petition has been
filed no sooner we passed our judgment and order dated
22.11.2021 declining to quash the FIR. In this sense,
this is nothing but an attempt to seek a review of our
judgment and order dated 22.11.2021 based on the joint
C.L.Dhakate
4 8-apl-1336-21.odt
affidavit filed by the parties before us, when such review
jurisdiction is not normally available in criminal
matters.
9. If all this is permitted, then possibly, a message
will go out that it is alright to make such serious
allegations that have the potential to destroy reputations
and families, require the investigating authorities to
undertake investigations, require the judicial
institutions to take cognizance and even decide the
several applications like bails, etc. normally taken out by
the parties and thereafter, whenever, it is convenient, to
simply say that the allegations were made due to
misunderstanding and out of rage.
10. Conversely, a message will also go out that in
such matters the criminal proceedings can be
short-circuited by "settling" with the complainant and
getting the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed.
Such messages are required to be nipped in the bud lest
they promote such abuses. The interests of justice will
not be promoted by either making it easy for parties to
file false complaints or by permitting the parties to
escape prosecution in serious offenses affecting the
society based on so-called private compromises between
the complainant and the accused. In cases of rape, not
just the complainant who is alleged to have been raped
but the society is also the victim. The legal process,
C.L.Dhakate
5 8-apl-1336-21.odt
therefore, cannot be permitted to be used or rather
abused for such ulterior purposes.
11. Accordingly, we dismiss this application with costs
of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand only) to be paid
jointly by both the applicants.
12. Rahul and Pranita are present in the Court and
they state that they will deposit costs of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.
Twenty Five Thousand Only) each, in this Court by
16.12.2021. These statements are accepted as
undertakings to this Court. Such costs once deposited to
be made over to the Legal Services Authority.
[PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.] [M.S. SONAK, J.]
C.L.Dhakate
