Bombay High Court
Dr. Saurabh S/O. Arunrao Nagulwar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ... on 15 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 apl541.18-1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.541 OF 2018
Dr. Saurabh S/o. Arunrao Nagulwa,
Aged about 31 years, Occ. Doctor,
R/o. Near Radhey Building,
Ashirwad Nagar, Chamorshi Road,
Gadchiroli, Tah. & Dist. Gadchiroli (M.S.).
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra through
P. S.O. Gadchiroli, Dist. Gadchiroli.
2. Nanda Marotrao Hatwar,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner,
R/o. Panchwati Nagar,
Near Dongre Petrol Pump,
Gadchiroli, Tah. & Dist. Gadchiroli.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Niraj S.Khandewale, Advocate for applicant.
Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, APP for respondent no.1.
Shri S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for respondent no.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 15.01.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Amit B. Borkar, J)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by
consent of the learned Advocates and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respective parties.
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 21:33:02 :::
2 apl541.18-1.odt
3. The present application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure challenges registration of the First
Information Report dated 29.5.2018, vide Crime No.212/2018
registered with the non-applicant no.1 - Police Station for
offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicant with the accusation that the applicant
was residing in adjoining room of the non-applicant no.2 for
five years prior to registration of the First Information Report.
The non-applicant no.2 was married and has a son aged about
six years. It is alleged that the non-applicant no.2 had been
divorced from her earlier husband. It is further alleged that on
8.12.2017 when she was returning from her dispensary, the
applicant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the non-
applicant no.2 on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, there
were repeated instances of sexual intercourse with the
applicant. It is further alleged that the applicant thereafter
refused to perform marriage with the non-applicant no.2 and
threatened her with dire consequences.
5. The applicant has, therefore, filed the present
application challenging registration of the First Information
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 21:33:02 :::
3 apl541.18-1.odt
Report. This Court on 27th June 2018, issued notice to the
non-applicants.
6. In pursuance of the notice, the non-applicant no.1
filed reply and stated that the applicant and the non-applicant
no.2 were in physical relationship. It is also stated that the
non-applicant no.2 on the pretext of false promise of the
marriage committed sexual intercourse with the non-applicant
no.2 and cheated her.
7. The non-applicant no.2 has filed reply and it is
stated that the contents of the First Information Report clearly
disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
applicant. There is sufficient material on record to prove the
allegations in the First Information Report. Therefore, it is
prayed that the application deserves to be dismissed.
8. We have heard Shri N.S. Khandewale, learned
Advocate for the applicant, Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, learned
APP for the non-applicant no.1 and Shri Sohoni, learned
Advocate for the non-applicant no.2.
9. Shri Sohoni, learned Advocate for the non-
applicant no.2, invited our attention to the judgment of the
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 21:33:02 :::
4 apl541.18-1.odt
Apex Court in the case of XYZ Vs. State of Gujarat and another
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 337., Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs.
State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) SCC 608 and Anurag
Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2019) 13 SCC 1
and, submitted that in the facts of the present case the ratio
laid down in the case of XYZ Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) is
squarely applicable and the non-applicant no.2 and the
prosecution must be given opportunity to prove its case.
10. We have carefully considered the contents of the
First Information Report. There is no allegation in the First
Information Report that the promise of marriage was a false
promise at its inception ,given in bad faith. The accusation in
the First Information Report does not show false promise, as of
immediate relevance or had direct nexus or to the decision of
the non-applicant no.2 to engage in sexual act.
11. The judgment relied upon by Shri Sohoni, learned
Advocate for the non-applicant no.2, in the case of XYZ Vs.
State of Gujarat (supra) was arising out of the case, where the
accused therein used to commit rape on the victim under threat
of termination of employment and publication of her pictures.
In the said case, there was no promise of marriage given by the
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 21:33:02 :::
5 apl541.18-1.odt
accused therein. Therefore, the said judgment is distinguishable
on facts and, therefore, does not support the case of the non-
applicant no.2.
12. The next case of Anurag Soni (supra) relied upon
by Shri Sohoni, learned Advocate for the non-applicant no.2, is
arising out of conviction of the accused after completion of the
trial. In the facts of the said case, the prosecution was successful
in proving that from inception, the promise given by the
accused in the said case to marry with the prosecutrix was false
promise. From the very beginning, there was no intention of the
accused to marry with the prosecutrix. In the facts of the
present case, the allegation of the non-applicant no.2 is not
that the promise of marriage given by the applicant was the
false promise at the inception of their relationship. Therefore,
the said judgment is of no help to the non-applicant no.2.
13. On the basis of allegations made in the First
Information Report, we are of the considered view that the
present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex
court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra).
14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the continuance of
the proceedings against the applicant would amount to abuse of
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 21:33:02 :::
6 apl541.18-1.odt
process of the Court. We, therefore, pass the following order:
ORDER
First Information No.212 OF 2018 dated 29.5.2018
registered with the non-applicant no.1 Police Station for
offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Criminal Application (APPP) No.1071/2018
In view of disposal of Criminal Application (APL)
No.541/2018, the application for grant of time to file typed
copy of the F.I.R. dated 28.05.2018 does not survive. Hence, it
is disposed.
Criminal Application (APPP) No.695/2018
In view of disposal of Criminal Application (APL)
No.541/2018, the application for grant of permission to file
additional documents on record does not survive. Hence, it is
disposed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Ambulkar
