Bombay High Court
Dilip S/O Haribhau Dhanore And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 2 July, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl576.21+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 576/2021
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 603/2021
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 152/2021
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 576/2021
1] Ms. Rupali D/o Digamber Kamble,
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Private Job,
R/o. 18, Hudkeshwar Road,
Salai Godhani, Nagpur 441204
2] Shri Sunny S/o Dilip Dhanore,
Aged 30 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Ward No. 2, At Post Mansar,
Tah. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station Ramtek,
Dist. Nagpur (Gramin)
.... NON-APPLICANT
*******************************************************************
Shri A.R. Prasad, Advocate for the applicant(s)
Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the non-applicant
*******************************************************************
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 603/2021
1] Shri Dilip S/o Haribhau Dhanore,
Aged 58 years, Occ. Business,
2] Smt. Chhayabai W/o Dilip Dhanore,
Aged 45 years, Occ. Housewife,
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2021 06:50:04 :::
Judgment 2 apl576.21+.odt
3] Shri Rohit S/o Dilip Dhanore,
Aged 23 years, Occ. Business,
4] Smt. Priya W/o Ravi Panuganti
before marriage, Priya D/o Dilip
Dhanore, Aged 34 years, Occ. Business,
All applicant nos. 1 to 4 are resident of
Ward No. 2, At Post Mansar,
Tahsil Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station Ramtek,
Dist. Nagpur (Gramin)
2] Ku. Rupali Digamber Kamble,
Aged about 29 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Post Salai Godhani,
Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur
.... NON-APPLICANT(S)
*******************************************************************
Shri A.R. Prasad, Advocate for the applicant(s)
Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the non-applicant no. 1
*******************************************************************
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 152/2021
Shri Sunny S/o Dilip Dhanore,
Aged 30 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Ward No. 2, At Post Mansar,
Tah. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur .... APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Ramtek,
Dist. Nagpur (Gramin)
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2021 06:50:04 :::
Judgment 3 apl576.21+.odt
2] Ku. Rupali Digamber Kamble,
Aged about 29 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Post - Salai Godhani, Hudkeshwar Road,
Nagpur
.... RESPONDENTS
*******************************************************************
Shri A.R. Prasad, Advocate for the appellant
Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondent no. 1
*******************************************************************
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
JULY 02, 2021
JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1] Heard. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] Since all the three matters arise out of the same first
information report and the subject matter of the proceedings is same, all the
matters are being disposed of by common judgment.
3] Criminal Application (APL) No. 576/2021 has been filed jointly
by the applicants for setting aside the charge-sheet and first information
report registered against the applicant no. 1 (accused no. 1). Criminal
Application (APL) No. 603/2021 is filed by accused nos. 2 to 5 for quashing
and setting aside of the first information report registered against them by
the non-applicant no. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 152/2021 challenges the
Judgment 4 apl576.21+.odt
judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail
application of the appellant - accused no. 1.
4] The first information report which is common in all the three
proceedings came to be registered against the accused no. 1 with the
accusations that the accused no. 1 had forcible sexual intercourse with the
victim on the ground of performance of marriage. It is alleged that the
accused nos. 1 to 5 abused the victim in the name of caste and therefore first
information report came to be registered against the accused nos. 1 to 5.
5] During the pendency of the investigation, the accused no. 1
came to be arrested and therefore he filed an application under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail. The learned Special
Judge by the order dated 17/03/2021 rejected the said application and
therefore the accused no. 1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 152/2021.
6] The accused nos. 2 to 5 filed Criminal Application (APL)
No. 603/2021 challenging registration of the first information report against
them. The Investigating Agency carried out the investigation and filed
charge-sheet against the accused nos. 1 to 5. After completion of the
investigation, the accused no. 1 and the victim arrived at mutual settlement
and therefore filed Criminal Application (APL) No. 576/2021 challenging
Judgment 5 apl576.21+.odt
registration of the first information report and charge-sheet against the
accused no. 1. It is stated that the accused no. 1 has agreed to marry with
the victim and the victim has no objection for setting aside the first
information report and charge-sheet against the accused nos. 1 to 5.
7] The victim is personally present before the Court. On specific
query made by us, she submitted that she has affirmed the application giving
her no objection for setting aside the first information report and charge-
sheet on her own free will and without there being any pressure or undue
influence. She has further confirmed that she has no objection for quashing
the consequent proceedings initiated by her against the accused nos. 1 to 5.
8] It is true that the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code is of serious nature and is an offence against society and therefore it
cannot be quashed by consent of the parties. At this stage, it would be
profitable to consider the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme 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 Supreme 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 society. The Court has to make an
endeavour to find out whether the first information report indeed discloses
Judgment 6 apl576.21+.odt
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 charge-
sheet.
9] Insofar as the first information report and charge-sheet
impugned in the present matters are concerned, it is clear that the accused
no. 1 and the victim were in love relationship which resulted into physical
relationship. There is no allegation or material brought on record by the
prosecution that at the inception of the relationship, there was promise made
by the accused no. 1 which was false. Mere breach of promise to marry will
not attract the ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.
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(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code are not made out.
10] Insofar as the offences under the provisions of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are concerned,
the place where the offences allegedly occurred was not a place within the
public view. Even otherwise also, the allegations made against the accused
nos. 1 to 5 are vague in nature which do not fulfill the ingredients of the
offences under the provisions of the said Act. Since the accused no. 1 and the
Judgment 7 apl576.21+.odt
victim have amicably settled their dispute, the chances of conviction are
bleak.
11] The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs.
State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 has held that the criminal
Courts are already burdened and when the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and chances of conviction are bleak, it is not advisable to
continue with the criminal proceedings.
12] In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Narinder Singh (supra) and Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and in view
of the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no impediment in
quashing the first information report and charge-sheet registered against the
accused nos. 1 to 5.
13] Hence, the following order:-
F.I.R. No. 59/2021 dated 17/02/2021 registered with Police
Station Ramtek, Nagpur, Charge-sheet dated 22/04/2021 and
consequential proceedings i.e. Special Case No. 234/2021
pending before District Judge-10 and Additional Sessions Judge,
Nagpur against the accused nos. 1 to 5 for the offences
Judgment 8 apl576.21+.odt
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 417 and 504 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 are quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
14] In view of the quashing and setting aside of F.I.R. No. 59/2021
dated 17/02/2021, Charge-sheet dated 22/04/2021 and consequential
proceedings i.e. Special Case No. 234/2021, Criminal Appeal No. 152/2021
is rendered infructuous. It is disposed of accordingly.
15] Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
ANSARI
