Bombay High Court
Amol S/O Ramesh Khobre And 3 Others vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ... on 30 November, 2021
Bench: M.S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
APL 499.20 judg F.doc 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.499/2020
1. Amol s/o Ramesh Khobre,
Aged about 29 years, Occ.Service.
2. Ramesh s/o Sambhaji Khobre,
Aged about 69 years, Occ. Agriculture
3. Kastura w/o Ramesh Khobre,
Aged about 50 years, Occ.-Agriculture.
4. Viresh s/o Ramesh Khobre,
Aged about 50 years, Occ.-Agriculture,
All R/o Village Nadi-Halterga, Taluka Nilanga,
District Latur 413516. ... Applicants
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Beltarodi, Nagpur.
2. Shilpa d/o Dattuji Nitine,
Aged about 25 years, Occ.-Pvt. Job.
R/o Moshi Khurd, Tq. Varud, Dist. Amravati,
Meherbaba Colony, Near Giramkar Lay-out,
Amravati. ...Non-applicants
______________________________________________________________
Mr. A.A. Choube, Adv for applicants.
Ms. S.H. Bhatiya, Adv for resp. no.2.
Mr. M.J. Khan, APP for State.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM: M.S. SONAK & PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : 30-11-2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per: M.S. Sonak, J.)
Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both sides.
2. This is an application for quashing the First Information
Report (FIR) No.290/2020 dated 30-07-2020 registered at Police
Station Beltarodi, Nagpur, alleging commission of offenses punishable
under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(2) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section
362(2)(n), 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the
applicants herein.
3. In this matter, after notices were issued, non-applicant
no.2 appeared before us. We appointed a counsel to obtain proper
instructions from her and represent her in this matter. The non-
applicant no.2, who is personally present today, and her counsel state
that the non-applicant no.2 is not interested in proceeding any further
with this matter and will have no objection if the impugned FIR is
quashed by this Court.
4. Mr. Khan, learned APP has invited our attention to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs
Madanlal, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 681 which holds that normally in
cases of rape or attempt to rape mere compromise between the parties
should not be a ground for quashing the proceedings.
5. Mr. Choube, learned Counsel for the applicants has
submitted that if the complaint/FIR is perused, then, it is quite
apparent that the liaison between applicant no.1 who is aged about 29
years, and non-applicant no.2 who is aged about 25 years was
consensual. There are no allegations of a false promise of marriage. He
submitted that it is true ultimately, the applicant no.1 did not or could
not get married, but then, this is not a case of securing consent based
on a false promise of marriage. He pointed out that there are no
allegations against the remaining applicants. He submitted that based
on vague and generalized allegations, the prosecution in the matter of
this nature ought not to continue. He relies on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of
Maharashtra and another, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 to submit that
the impugned FIR may be quashed.
6. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties
and perused the material on record. On perusal of complaint/FIR, we
are inclined to agree with the submissions of Mr. Choube, learned
Counsel, on the aspect of a consensual relationship. From the
allegations made in the complaint/FIR, it would be difficult to conclude
that any false promise of marriage was made to secure consent for such
a relationship which continued for a significant period between the two
consenting adults. At the highest, this amounts to a case where
applicant no.1 went back upon his promise or failed to honor his
promise based on some subsequent developments. Based on the
allegations in the complaint/FIR, therefore, it cannot be said that the
initial promise itself was false or made only to obtain consent for the
relationship.
7. The allegations in the context of the Atrocities Act are
possibly made to rope the parents and other relatives of applicant no.1.
The allegations are based on telephonic conversations. Based on such
materials, we do not think it would be appropriate to let the
prosecution continue any further in this matter, particularly now that
the complainant does not wish to pursue the same.
8. We have considered the decision in the case of Madanlal
(supra) as also Pramod Pawar (supra). The later decision draws out
the distinction between false promise and breach of promise. The later
decision refers to the facts necessary to be established to establish that
consent was vitiated by a misconception of facts arising out of a false
promise to marry for sexual favors. As noted earlier, the complaint/FIR
does not refer to such basic facts. Rather from the perusal of the
complaint/FIR, a case of breach of promise, at the highest, has been
made but not a case of false promise. Having regard to these peculiar
facts coupled with the non-applicant no.2's resolve not to proceed any
further in this matter, we think the interest of justice will be met if the
impugned FIR is quashed. Such quashing is not merely on account of
some compromise that may have been reached between applicant no.1
and non-applicant no.2. Such quashing is because the necessary
ingredients to constitute the offenses alleged have not been made out
even if we were to take the allegations in the complaint at their face
value.
9. The non-applicant no.2 is present in this Court and we
have interviewed her. She has also stated that she does not wish to
proceed any further with her complaint and now she wants to turn a
new leaf. Upon cumulative consideration of all such circumstances, we
think that the interests of justice would be served if the impugned FIR
is quashed. Accordingly, we quash the impugned FIR and make the
rule absolute in this petition.
10. Ms. Bhatiya, learned Counsel appearing for non-applicant
no.2 points out that the original Caste Certificate of non-applicant no.2
and her mobile phone are with the Investigating Agencies since the
same was attached during the investigation. She submits that the
necessary directions may be issued for the return of the same to the
non-applicant no.2.
11. Mr. Khan, learned APP points out that the mobile phone
has been sent to the forensic experts and now the same will be recalled
and returned to non-applicant no.2. He states that even the original
Caste Certificate will be returned to non-applicant no.2. Even
according to us, it is only proper that this is done within a reasonable
period and we therefore direct accordingly.
12. We thank Ms. Bhatiya, learned Counsel appointed under
the Legal Aid Scheme to appear on behalf of non-applicant no.2. She
has obtained proper instructions from non-applicant no.2 and assisted
this Court in the disposal of this matter. We, therefore, thank her and
quantify the fees payable to her at Rs. 2000/-.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)
Deshmukh
