Bombay High Court
Ram Tularam Hargude And Another vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Bhandara on 24 June, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl458.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 458/2021
1] Ram Tularam Hargude,
Aged 22 years, Occ. Education
R/o. Morgaon, Tah. Mohadi,
Dist. Bhandara
2] Satyawati Hribhau Borkar,
Aged 23 years, Occ. Education
R/o. Gandhi Ward, Morgaon,
Tah. Mohadi, Dist. Bhandara
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Bhandara,
Dist. Bhandara
.... NON-APPLICANT
*******************************************************************
Shri A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for the applicant(s)
Shri S.P. Deshpande, APP for the non-applicant
*******************************************************************
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
JUNE 24, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- V.M. DESHPANDE, J.)
1] Heard Shri A.A. Dhawas, learned advocate for the applicants
and Shri S.P. Deshpande, learned Addl. PP. For the non-applicant/State.
Judgment 2 apl458.21.odt
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
2] This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. No. 972/2018 together with quashment of
Sessions Trial No. 34/2020 pending on the file of learned Sessions Judge at
Bhandara, is filed jointly by the first informant and the accused in the said
crime.
3] Both the first informant and the accused are personally present
in the office of Shri A.A. Dhawas, Advocate at the time of hearing of this
application by virtual mode. Shri A.A. Dhawas, Advocate identified the
applicant no. 2 who is the first informant.
4] The first information report was lodged on 05/12/2018 by the
applicant no. 2 (first informant) with Police Station Mohadi on the basis of
which Police Station Officer registered the offence against the applicant no. 1
for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 417 and 493 of
the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet in the Court of Jurisdictional
Magistrate who found that the case is exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions. Therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and
Judgment 3 apl458.21.odt
registered as Sessions Trial No. 34/2020 and is pending on the file of learned
Sessions Judge, Bhandara. By this application, it is submitted before the
Court by the first informant alongwith the original accused that she has
settled the dispute with the applicant no. 1 and she does not wish to proceed
with the matter against him and she has decided to close this case.
5] According to the learned advocate for the applicants initially
the first information report was registered with Police Station Mohadi and
subsequently the crime was transferred to the Police Station Bhandara
because the allegations made in the first information report were committed
at Bhandara.
6] Independently, we have perused the first information report
dated 05/12/2018 lodged by the applicant no. 2 (complainant). It states that
at the time of lodging of the first information report, the applicant no. 2 was
aged about 22 years and she was taking education in Arts faculty in Standard
XI in the year 2014. That time, the applicant no. 1 was also taking education
and they came in contact with each other. The report further states that the
applicant no. 1 provided one cellphone to the applicant no. 2 and he
proposed her which was accepted by the applicant no. 2. Thereafter, they fell
in love with each other. It is also stated in the first information report that
from 2014 itself, they used to visit each others house and they were talking
Judgment 4 apl458.21.odt
to each other on phone. It is stated that their love came to the knowledge of
their family members and therefore for 7-8 months they did not talk to each
other. However, it is further stated that in the year 2017, the applicant no. 2
took admission to D.Ed College and again the talk in between them resumed.
It is stated that the applicant no. 1 / accused was residing in a rented
premises. It is stated that in the year 2018, the applicant no. 2 (first
informant) on her own went to the room of the applicant no. 1 and there
they agreed that they should marry with each other. Accordingly, in the room
itself as per the first information report, the applicant no. 1 tied Mangalsutra
in her neck and thereafter they had sexual relation. It is stated in the first
information report that that time and subsequent to that whenever there
used to be sexual intercourse in between them at no point of time, the sexual
intercourse was against her will and wish. It is stated in the first information
report that in the year 2018 she was having in her menses. That time also,
the applicant no. 1 wanted to have sexual intercourse which was denied by
the applicant no. 2. It is stated that thereafter the applicant no. 1 has turned
around and did not marry with her and therefore the report is lodged.
7] From the first information report, it is clear that the sexual
relation between the applicants was by consent. At no point of time, any
intercourse was committed by the applicant no. 1 against the wish of the
applicant no. 2.
Judgment 5 apl458.21.odt
8] In the backdrop of the contents of the first information report,
in our view, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder
Singh and others vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014 AIR (SC) 1839 can be
made applicable.
9] Consequently, we pass the following order :-
(a) The criminal application is allowed.
(b) F.I.R. No. 972/2018 registered with the Police
Station Bhandara against the applicant no. 1 for the offences
punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 417 and 493 of the
Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the
Sessions Trial No. 34/2020 is also quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
ANSARI
