Bombay High Court
Suraj S/O. Ashok Kohale And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 1 February, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl564.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 564/2018
1] Suraj S/o. Ashok Kohale,
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Private Job,
R/o. Hanuman Nagar, Chamorshi,
Tah. Chamorshi, Dist. Gadchiroli
2] Ashok S/o. Ganpati Kohale,
Aged about 51 years, Occ. Private Job,
R/o. Hanuman Nagar, Chamorshi,
Tah. Chamorshi, Dist. Gadchiroli
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
P.S. Chamorshi, Tah. Chamorshi
and Dist. Gadchiroli
2] Sadhana D/o. Hivraj Dange,
Aged about 26 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. Nainpur, Tah. Sindhevahi,
Dist. Chandrapur
.... NON-APPLICANT(S)
___________________________________________________________________
Shri G.B. Hemke, Advocate for the applicant(s)
Shri N.S. Rao, APP for the non-applicant no. 1
Ms. Radha Mishra, Advocate (appointed) for the non-applicant no. 2
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 01/02/2021
ANSARI
Judgment 2 apl564.18.odt
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPP) NO. 1275/2019
1] For the reasons stated in the application, the applicants are
permitted to carry out the amendment proposed in the criminal application.
2] The criminal application is allowed accordingly. The
amendment be carried out forthwith.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 564/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
3] Heard.
4] RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
5] This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure challenging registration of F.I.R. No. 84 of 2018 dated 11/04/2018
with the non-applicant no.1 - Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 294 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") and
consequent Charge-sheet No. 47/2018 in Special Atrocity Case
No. 08/2018. The first information report came to be registered against the
ANSARI
Judgment 3 apl564.18.odt
applicants with the accusations that the applicant no. 1 was in relationship
with the non applicant no. 2 from 2014 till 02/04/2018 and the applicant
no. 1 had sexual intercourse with the non applicant no. 2 with the promise of
marriage. It is also alleged that the applicant no. 2 who is the father of the
applicant no. 1 had hurled abuses in the name of caste of the non-applicant
no. 2.
6] The applicants therefore have filed the present application
challenging registration of the first information report against them. This
Court on 31/07/2019 issued notices to the non-applicants. Pending the
present application, charge-sheet came to be filed against the applicants.
7] We have carefully considered the contents of the first
information report and the material produced on record by the prosecution
in the form of charge-sheet. From the allegations in the first information
report, it appears that the applicant no. 1 was in relationship with the non-
applicant no. 2 from 2014 to 2018.
8] The material on record and the accusations against the
applicant no. 1 are not to the effect that at the inception of relationship,
there was false promise of marriage made by the applicant no. 1 to the non-
applicant no. 2. In the present case, at the most, it can be said that there was
ANSARI
Judgment 4 apl564.18.odt
breach of promise made by the applicant no. 1 to the non-applicant no. 2.
The issue in the present case is squarely covered by the judgement 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. 1, at the inception of
relationship, had made false promise of marriage to the non applicant no. 2.
Insofar as the allegations made against the applicant no. 2 in respect of the
offences under the Act of 1989 are concerned, we have carefully considered
the allegations in the first information report and the statement of witnesses
brought on record by way of chargesheet by the applicants. After carefully
considering the statements on record in the form of chargesheet and the first
information report, we find that except in the statement of victim, there is no
corroboration by any other witness in support of the allegations made against
the applicant no. 2 for the alleged offences under the Act of 1989. We are
therefore satisfied that in absence of any corroboration to the vague
ANSARI
Judgment 5 apl564.18.odt
allegations of the victim, the ingredients necessary to constitute the offences
under the provisions of the Act of 1989 are not fulfilled. Therefore,
continuation of the prosecution against the applicants would amount to
abuse of process of the Court.
9] Hence, the following order:-
F.I.R. No. 84/2018 registered with the non applicant no. 1 -
Police Station on 11/04/2018 and consequent Charge-sheet
bearing No. 47/2018 in Special Atrocity Case No. 08/2018
pending before the Principal District & Sessions Judge,
Gadchiroli are quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
Fees of the advocate appointed to represent the non-applicant
no. 2 be paid as per the Rules.
JUDGE JUDGE
ANSARI
