Bombay High Court
Sopan Digambar Chouke vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. ... on 11 October, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 APEAL221.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2020
APPELLANT : Sopan Digambar Chouke,
Aged about 27 years, Occu. Labourer,
R/o Pedka Patonda, Tal. Khamgaon,
Dist. Buldhana.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Khamgaon City Police Station
Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana.
2. Ku. Puja Anil Shegokar,
Age about 22 years, Occu. Private Service,
R/o Vihigaon, Tal. Khamgaon,
Dist. Buldhana.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Amit D. Bhate, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Indraneel J. Damle, A. P. P. for the respondent no.1
Ms. Mayuri Kulkarni, Advocate appointed for respondent no.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE and
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 11, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per V. M. Deshpande, J.]
Heard Mr. Amit Bhate, learned counsel for the appellant,
Mr. Indraneel Damle, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 02:45:27 :::
2 APEAL221.20.odt
respondent no.1/State and Ms. Mayuri Kulkarni, learned counsel
appointed through the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
Nagpur to provide legal assistance to respondent no.2/victim.
2. The present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
arises out of the order passed by the learned Special Judge,
Khamgaon, dated 19.03.2020 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.
102/2020, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application
filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal by consent of the
learned counsel for the parties.
4. It is the submission of Mr. Bhate, learned counsel for the
appellant that respondent no.2/victim is a woman, who has already
attained the age of majority and physical relations in between them
were in the nature of consensual sex. He also submits that the victim
was aware that the appellant was a married person and in spite of
that she kept relations with him resulting into pregnancy, which was
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 02:45:27 :::
3 APEAL221.20.odt
terminated. In spite of that, she again continued the physical
relationship and ultimately lodged the report in question. The
learned counsel, therefore, submits that this is a fit case wherein the
Court should protect the personal liberty of the applicant.
5. The appeal is strongly opposed by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1/State and the learned counsel
appointed for respondent no.2/victim. Though, the victim has not
filed any separate reply, the State has filed the reply and pointed out
that the Court should not exercise the discretion in favour of the
appellant.
6. Merely because the victim is a person who has attained
majority that does not mean that the physical relations between her
and the appellant were consensual in nature. It is an admitted fact
that the appellant is a married person. In the course of hearing, it
could be gathered from the submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the appellant is also having a kid from his wife. It
appears that in spite of that, the appellant has allured the victim for
keeping physical relations with him.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 02:45:27 :::
4 APEAL221.20.odt
7. The first information report also states that the appellant
had taken Rs.5,00,000/- from respondent no.2 with an assurance
that he will provide government job to her. The learned counsel for
the appellant submits that the victim has got the job. This type of
submission is nothing but arrogance on the part of the appellant. The
lady/victim must have got the job due to her own merit. The
question still remains that the appellant had taken Rs.5,00,000/-
from the victim on an assurance that he will provide her job.
8. Presently the Court is deciding the case of the appellant
qua the first information report. The first information report is not
the last word of the prosecution. During the course of the
investigation, it is always open for the Investigating Officer to add
more penal sections. At this stage, Mr. Bhate, learned counsel
submitted that the Investigating Officer has already added the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code.
9. The allegations made against the appellant are very
serious in nature. A married person is giving false promise to the
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 02:45:27 :::
5 APEAL221.20.odt
victim, an unmarried girl, that he will give divorce to his wife and
thereafter encouraged the victim to keep sexual relations with him.
In such type of cases, in our view, the Court should not exercise any
discretion in favour of the appellant. Consequently we pass the
following order :-
ORDER
1. Criminal Appeal No. 221/2020 stands dismissed.
2. The order passed by the learned Special Judge, Khamgaon,
dated 19.03.2020 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 102/2020 is
hereby confirmed.
3. Interim order granted by this Court on 08.04.2020 stands
vacated immediately. The law should take its own course.
4. Ms. Mayuri Kulkarni, learned counsel appointed for the
respondent no.2 is entitled to receive her professional fees from the
High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur and we are
quantifying her fees at Rs.1,500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale
