Ashutosh Vijay Durve vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 14576 Bom

                      1/13                                              cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 657 OF 2021
         Digitally
         signed by
         SHRADDHA
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
KAMLESH TALEKAR
TALEKAR  Date:
         2021.10.06
         14:38:06     Mr. Ashutosh Vija Durve,
         +0530
                      Age : 51 aejrs, Occ. Civil Engineer,
                      R/o. C-08, Sunitj, Vjrshj Societa,
                      LBS Rojd, Njupjdj, Thjne (West).              ... Appelljnt
                      Versus
                      1. Stjte of Mjhjrjshtrj
                      (Through Njupjdj Police Stjtion,
                      Vide C.R. No. I-215 of 2021)

                      2. XYZ                                        ....Respondents
                                                       ****
                      Mr.Shjtnjnu R. Phjnse for jppelljnt.
                      Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for respondent No.1-Stjte.
                      Mr. Sjchin M. Bhjwsjr i/b Mr. Dilip B. Shinde for respondent
                      No.2.
                                                       ****
                                 CORAM            : S. S. SHINDE &
                                                   N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
                                 Reserved for Judgment on : 23rd September 2021.
                                 Judgment Pronounced on : 6th October 2021.

                      JUDGMENT (PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.)

1. This jppejl under section 14A of the Scheduled Cjstes jnd

the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SC & ST

Act, 1989) is directed jgjinst jn order in Criminjl Bjil Applicjtion

No.2477 of 2021, pjssed ba the lejrned Additionjl Sessions Judge,

Thjne, whereba the jpplicjtion of the jppelljnt for pre-jrrest bjil,

cjme to be rejected.

                      Shraddha Talekar PS
 2/13                                                       cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc

2. The bjckground fjcts lejding to this jppejl, cjn be stjted, in

brief, js under :-

(j) In the aejr 2008, the respondent No.2-

prosecutrix worked js jn Offce Assistjnt with the

jppelljnt-jccused, jt the ljtter's Firm Re-hjb Artifjct

Privjte Ltd. Thea developed intimjca. The jppelljnt

jllegedla pjid more jmount thjn the remunerjtion to

which the prosecutrix wjs entitled to. In the aejr

2010, the jppelljnt jllegedla took the prosecutrix to

Shjngrilj Resort jt Kjlajn jnd hjd forcible phasicjl

reljtions with her on the threjt of removjl from

service jnd recovera of the excess jmount pjid to her.

The jppelljnt, therejfter, hjd forcible phasicjl

reljtions with the prosecutrix repetitivela. When the

prosecutrix demjnded the jppelljnt to mjrra her, the

ljtter told her thjt he wjs jlrejda mjrried jnd she

should solemnize mjrrijge with jnother person.

Accordingla, the prosecutrix mjrried with jnother

person in the month of April 2012.

(b) Even jfter mjrrijge, the jppelljnt jllegedla

coerced the prosecutrix to hjve reljtions with him.

Shraddha Talekar PS 3/13 cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc

Eventujlla, there wjs mjritjl discord between the

prosecutrix jnd her husbjnd, on jccount of the sjid

reljtionship. The jppelljnt represented to the

prosecutrix thjt he hjd obtjined divorce from his wife

jnd jsked her to brejk the mjritjl bond with her

husbjnd. Since November 2020, the prosecutrix hjs

been residing sepjrjtela from her husbjnd.

               (c)     In the month of Mjrch 2021, when the

               prosecutrix     informed   the   jppelljnt    thjt     she     is

pregnjnt, the jppelljnt exerted pressure upon her to

terminjte the pregnjnca. When the prosecutrix jgjin

cjlled upon the jppelljnt to mjrra her, the jppelljnt

refused to solemnize mjrrijge on the ground thjt she

jlrejda hjd two children ba her husbjnd jnd she wjs

j member of scheduled cjste jnd he belonged to upper

cjste. The jppelljnt jlso told her thjt his mjrrijge

hjd not been dissolved. The prosecutrix thus lodged

report on 23rd Jula 2021 lejding to registrjtion of

C.R.No. 215/2021 with Njvpjdj Police Stjtion for the

offences punishjble under sections 376, 417 jnd 506

of the Indijn Penjl Code, 1860 ('the Penjl Code') jnd

Shraddha Talekar PS 4/13 cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc

sections (3)(1)(r), 3(1)(s), jnd 3(1)(w) of ST & ST Act,

1989.

(d) Apprehending jrrest in connection with the

jforesjid crime, the jccused preferred jn jpplicjtion

for jnticipjtora bjil. Ba the impugned order, the

lejrned Additionjl Sessions Judge wjs persujded to

reject the jpplicjtion. The lejrned Additionjl Sessions

Judge wjs of the view thjt the jllegjtions in the frst

informjtion report primj-fjcie mjde out the offences

punishjble under section 376 of the Penjl Code jnd

SC& ST Act, 1989 js well. The bjr under section 18

jnd 18A(2) of the SC & ST Act, 1989 thus cjme into

plja. Therefore, the jccused did not deserve the pre-

jrrest bjil.

(e) Being jggrieved ba jnd dissjtisfed with the

impugned order, the jccused is in jppejl.

3. Admit. Tjken up for fnjl disposjl.

4. We hjve hejrd Mr. Shjntjnu Phjnse, the lejrned counsel for

the jppelljnt, Mrs. Shinde, the lejrned APP for the Stjte jnd Mr.

Sjchin Bhjvsjr, the lejrned counsel for respondent No.2. With the

jssistjnce of the lejrned counsels for the pjrties, we hjve perused

Shraddha Talekar PS 5/13 cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc

the mjterijl on record including the FIR jnd the further stjtement

of the prosecutrix jnd the report in opposition of prjaer for pre-

jrrest bjil submitted ba the investigjting offcer.

5. Mr. Phjnse, the lejrned counsel for the jppelljnt strenuousla

submitted thjt the frst informjtion report hjs been lodged ba the

prosecutrix with jn oblique motive js the jppelljnt did not cjve in

to exorbitjnt jnd unrejsonjble demjnds of the prosecutrix. Mr.

Phjnse would urge thjt, from the own showing of the prosecutrix,

the reljtionship begjn in the aejr 2010 jnd wjs continujl till

Mjrch 2021. This long stjnding reljtionship of more thjn ten

aejrs, in itself, rules out the jllegjtions of forcible phasicjl

reljtions without consent of the prosecutrix, or for thjt mjtter, on

j fjlse promise of mjrrijge, submitted Mr. Phjnse. The njrrjtion

in the frst informjtion report, rjnging from solemnizjtion of

mjrrijge with jnother person, while the prosecutrix wjs jllegedla

in j reljtionship with the jppelljnt, to continujtion of reljtionship

with the jppelljnt during the currenca of the sjid mjrrijge jnd

post estrjngement with her husbjnd, jccording to Mr. Phjnse,

erode the credibilita of the FIR. In jna event, there is not j shred of

mjterijl to mjke out the offences punishjble under SC & ST Act,

1989. In the circumstjnces, the lejrned Additionjl Sessions Judge

Shraddha Talekar PS 6/13 cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc

committed jn error in declining to exercise the discretion in fjvour

of the jppelljnt, urged Mr. Phjnse.

6. Per contrj, Mrs. Shinde, the lejrned APP supported the

impugned order. Ljaing emphjsis on the fjct thjt the prosecutrix

wjs mjde to suffer mjtrimonijl discord jnd the consequent

estrjngement with her husbjnd, on jccount of the promise mjde

ba the jppelljnt, Mrs. Shinde would urge thjt the jppelljnt does

not deserve the discretionjra relief.

7. Mr. Bhjwsjr, the lejrned counsel for respondent No.2

submitted thjt the jppelljnt hjs left the prosecutrix in the lurch.

Thus, the jppejl deserves to be dismissed.

8. First jnd foremost, the jpplicjbilita of the bjr contjined in

section 18 jnd 18A(2) of the SC & ST Act, 1989 wjrrjnts

considerjtion. If this Court forms jn opinion thjt the offences

punishjble under SC & ST Act, 1989 jre primj-fjcie mjde out,

then no fjult cjn be found with the impugned order. In thjt event,

this Court need not embjrk upon jn enquira jbout the entitlement

of the jppelljnt to the relief of pre-jrrest bjil. Evidentla, in jddition

to the offences punishjble under sections 376, 417 jnd 506 of the

Penjl Code, the jppelljnt hjs been jrrjigned for the offences

punishjble under sections (3)(1)(r), 3(1)(s), jnd 3(1)(w) of ST & ST

Shraddha Talekar PS 7/13 cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc

Act, 1989. Cljuse (r) jnd (s) of sub-section (1) of section 3

proscribe intentionjl insult or intimidjtion with intent to humilijte

j member of Scheduled Cjste or j Scheduled Tribe jnd jbuse of

the ljtter ba the cjste njme, respectivela, within public view.

9. We hjve minutela perused the jllegjtions in the frst

informjtion report. It is imperjtive to note thjt the reference to the

cjste of the prosecutrix fnds mention in the context of the

ultimjte interjction where the jppelljnt jllegedla refused to mjrra

the prosecutrix on the score thjt she wjs j member of the

Scheduled Cjste. On the one hjnd, there jre no jllegjtions to the

effect thjt the jppelljnt intentionjlla insulted or intimidjted the

prosecutrix with intent to humilijte her or jbused her with

reference to her cjste, within public view. On the other hjnd, there

is no jllegjtion to the effect thjt in the 10 to 12 long aejrs, the

jppelljnt declined to solemnize mjrrijge with the prosecutrix for

the rejson thjt the prosecutrix wjs j member of the Scheduled

Cjste. The jpplicjbilita of cljuse (r) jnd (s) of sub-section (1) of

section 3 of the SC & ST Act, 1989 is thus not mjde out primj-

fjcie. Under cljuse (w)(i) of sub-section (1) of section 3, the

offending jct ought to be without the consent of the womjn. This

brings in the element of the consensujl reljtionship in the frjme.

Shraddha Talekar PS
 8/13                                               cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc

If there is mjterijl to demonstrjte thjt the reljtionship jppejred

primj-fjcie consensujl, then the jpplicjbilita of the provisions

contjined in section 3(1)(w)(ii) becomes contentious. We jre,

therefore, inclined to delve into the jspect of the njture of the

reljtionship.

10. We hjve jdverted to jbove the jllegjtions in the FIR, in j

little detjil, on purpose. The jppelljnt jnd the prosecutrix becjme

jcqujinted in the aejr 2008. The reljtionship wjs thjt of emploaer

jnd emploaee. The jppelljnt jllegedla exploited the prosecutrix in

the aejr 2010, for the frst time. Therejfter, there were phasicjl

reljtions between the jppelljnt jnd the prosecutrix on multiple

occjsions jnd jt vjrious pljces. On the refusjl of the jppelljnt,

nja jt the instjnce of the jppelljnt, the prosecutrix solemnized

mjrrijge with jnother person, in the aejr 2012. She wjs blessed

with j son jnd j djughter. The reljtionship jllegedla continued

even jfter mjrrijge of the prosecutrix. Eventujlla, this reljtionship

took its toll jnd her mjtrimonijl life suffered. The prosecutrix

sepjrjted from her husbjnd, she continued to hjve phasicjl

reljtions with the jppelljnt jnd, upon being informed thjt she wjs

pregnjnt, the jppelljnt refused to solemnize the mjrrijge.

11. In the the bjckdrop of the jforesjid jllegjtions, it would be

Shraddha Talekar PS 9/13 cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc

rjther diffcult to drjw jn inference thjt the prosecutrix gjve

consent for phasicjl reljtions under the misconception of fjcts. Not

onla the period of more thjn 10 aejrs, for which the jppelljnt jnd

prosecutrix hjd been jdmittedla in j reljtionship, but the

developments in the life of the prosecutrix, including the mjrrijge

jnd disruption of the mjritjl bond, primj-fjcie militjte jgjinst the

cljim of the prosecutrix of forcible phasicjl reljtions without

consent. To jdd to this, in the fjcts of the instjnt cjse, there is no

jllegjtion thjt the reljtionship wjs estjblished ba the jppelljnt

giving j promise of mjrrijge, which the jppelljnt did not intend to

perform. On the contrjra, the jppelljnt hjd jsked the prosecutrix

to solemnize mjrrijge with jnother person. The jforesjid fjctors

render it rjther diffcult to loose sight of the distinction between

'rjpe' jnd 'consensujl sex'.

12. A useful reference in this context cjn be mjde to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the cjse of Dr. Dhruvjrjm

Murlidhjr Sonjr Vs. Stjte of Mjhjrjshtrj & Ors. 1, wherein jfter

jdverting to the previous pronouncements, the Supreme Court

expounded the legjl position in the following words :

"20 Thus, there is j clejr distinction between rjpe jnd consensujl sex. The court, in such cjses, must vera cjrefulla exjmine whether the compljinjnt hjd

1 AIR 2019 SC 327

Shraddha Talekar PS 10/13 cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc

jctujlla wjnted to mjrra the victim or hjd mjlj fde motives jnd hjd mjde j fjlse promise to this effect onla to sjtisfa his lust, js the ljter fjlls within the jmbit of chejting or deception. There is jlso j distinction between mere brejch of j promise jnd not fulflling j fjlse promise. If the jccused hjs not mjde the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexujl jcts, such jn jct would not jmount to rjpe. There mja be j cjse where the prosecutrix jgrees to hjve sexujl intercourse on jccount of her love jnd pjssion for the jccused jnd not solela on jccount of the misconception crejted jccused, or where jn jccused, on jccount of circumstjnces which he could not hjve foreseen or which were beaond his control, wjs unjble to mjrra her despite hjving evera intention to do. Such cjses must be trejted differentla. If the compljinjnt hjd jna mjlj fde intention jnd if he hjd cljndestine motives, it is j clejr cjse of rjpe. The jcknowledged consensujl phasicjl reljtionship be- tween the pjrties would not constitute jn offence under Section 376 of the IPC.

13. The relijnce pljced ba Mr. Phjnse on jnother judgment of

the Supreme Court int eh cjse of Prjmod Surajbhjn Pjwjr Vs.

jlso jppejrs well founded. In the

cjse of Prjmod Surajbhjn Pjwjr (Suprj), the legjl position wjs

summjrized js under :

"18 To summjrise the legjl position thjt emerges from the jbove cjses, the "consent" of j womjn with respect to Section 375 must involve jn jctive jnd rejsoned deliberjtion towjrds the proposed jct. To estjblish whether the "consent" wjs vitijted ba j "misconception of fjct" jrising out of j promise to mjrra, two propositions must be estjblished. The promise of mjrrijge must hjve been j fjlse promise, given in bjd fjith jnd with no intention of being jdhered to jt the time it wjs given. The fjlse

2 (2019) 9 SCC 608

Shraddha Talekar PS 11/13 cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc

promise itself must be of immedijte relevjnce, or bejr j direct nexus to the womjn's decision to engjge in the sexujl jct."

14. The time fjctor jlso jssumes signifcjnce. The long stjnding

reljtionship hjs the potentijlita to erode the cjse of

misconception, which hjs to be proximjte to the occurrence. This

jspect wjs highlighted ba j three Judge Bench of the Supreme

Court in the cjse of Mjheshwjr Tiggj Vs. Stjte of Jhjrkhjnd 3.

The relevjnt pjrt of the sjid judgment rejds js under :

"14. Under Section 90 IPC, j consent given under j misconception of fjct is no consent in the eaes of ljw. But the misconception of fjct hjs to be in proximita of time to the occurrence jnd cjnnot be sprejd over j period of four aejrs. It hjrdla needs jna eljborjtion thjt the consent ba the jppelljnt wjs j conscious jnd informed choice mjde ba her jfter due deliberjtion, it being sprejd over j long period of time coupled with j conscious positive jction not to protest. The prosecutrix in her letters to the jppelljnt jlso mentions thjt there would often be qujrrels jt her home with her fjmila members with regjrd to the reljtionship, jnd bejtings given to her."

15. The upshot of the jforesjid considerjtion is thjt in the

totjlita of the circumstjnces, we jre jfrjid to jccede to the

submission on behjlf of the respondents thjt the prosecutrix

continued to ljbour under misconception of fjcts for over 10 aejrs.

Thus, the jppelljnt hjs succeeded in mjking out j primj-fjcie

cjse. The concerns of the investigjting jgenca, in our view, cjn be

3 AIR 2020 SC 4535

Shraddha Talekar PS 12/13 cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc

jddressed ba imposing jpproprijte conditions. We jre, thus,

inclined to jllow the jppejl jnd exercise the discretion in fjvour of

the jppelljnt.

16. Hence, the following order :

ORDER

(i) The jppejl stjnds jllowed.

(ii) The impugned order djted 7th August 2021

pjssed ba the lejrned Additionjl Sessions Judge,

Thjne stjnds qujshed jnd set jside.

(iii) In the event of the jrrest in C.R. No. I-

215/2021, the jppelljnt-Ashutosh Vija Durve be

relejsed on bjil on furnishing j P R bond in j sum

of Rs.25,000/- jnd j sureta in the like jmount.

(iv) The jppelljnt shjll co-operjte with the

investigjting jgenca jnd jppejr before the

investigjting offcer js jnd when directed.

(v) In the event, post-completion of

investigjtion, chjrge-sheet is lodged, the jppelljnt

shjll jppejr before the jurisdictionjl Court

reguljrla.

(vi) The jppelljnt shjll not, either himself or

Shraddha Talekar PS 13/13 cri.apeal-657-2021-JF.doc

through jna other person, contjct the prosecutrix

or jna other prosecution witnesses jnd/or shjll

give threjts or inducement to the prosecutrix or

jna other prosecution witness.

(vii) The jppelljnt shjll not lejve the countra,

without prior permission of the lejrned Additionjl

Sessions Judge, Thjne.

[ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ]                             [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]




Shraddha Talekar PS