Abhijit @ Abhishek S/O, Gajanan ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15242 Bom

   12APL 1158-2021                                 1



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

            CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1158 OF 2021

  1. Abhijit @ Abhishek s/o Gajanan Mahule,
     aged about 29 years, Occ. Private.

  2. Shubhangi D/o Subhash Dhurve @ Smt. Shubhangi w/o
     Abhishek Mahule, aged about 26 years,
     Occ. Housewife.

       Both are R/o Plot No.441, New Colony,
       Near NMC Office, Chawani, Nagpur.
                                                                ...APPLICANTS
                    Versus

  The State of Maharashtra,
  through Police Station Officer,
  Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur.
                                                          ...NON-APPLICANT


  Shri Sandeep N. Nandeshwar, Advocate for the applicants.
  Shri V.A. Thakre, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/ State.

                               .....

                                     CORAM : M.S. SONAK &
                                             PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
                                     DATED : OCTOBER 25, 2021.


  ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.)



                    Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
  finally with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties.




::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2021                     ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2021 02:32:34 :::
    12APL 1158-2021                               2



  2.                This is a joint application filed by the accused and
  the complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure for quashing of chargesheet and criminal proceedings
  bearing Special Atrocities Case No. 23/2016 arose out of the
  First Information Report No. 291/2015 dated 22/09/2015
  registered at Police Station, Sadar, Dist. Nagpur for the offences
  punishable under Section 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code
  and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
  the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
  pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge - 12,
  Nagpur.


  3.                The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on
  22/09/2015, applicant No.2 lodged a report with the aforesaid
  police station against applicant No.1 alleging therein that on the
  pretext of marriage, applicant No.1 established physical
  relationship, and thereafter refuses to marry.


  4.                Shri S.N. Nandeshwar, learned counsel for the
  applicants, acknowledges the identification of the applicants
  and submits that at the time of incident, applicant No.2/
  complainant has already attained the age of majority. He further
  submit that immediately after lodging of the report in 2015,
  applicant No.1 performed marriage with applicant No.2 and
  that presently, out of the said wedlock, they have two children,
  viz. Bhavik and Ashi, aged around 5 and 1 years respectively,
  and hence, applicant No.2 does not want to proceed in the



::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2021 02:32:34 :::
    12APL 1158-2021                                3



  matter any further, and thus he prayed for allowing the
  application.


  5.                In order to satisfy ourselves, we have personally
  talked with applicant No.2, and we are satisfied with the fact
  that at the relevant time, applicant No.2 had crossed the age of
  majority. That there was a consensual physical relationship
  between the parties on the pretext of marriage.


  6.                A perusal of the F.I.R. would indicate that applicant
  No.1 wanted to marry applicant No.2 after the marriage of her
  sister, however, as applicant No.2 conceived, she insisted him
  for marriage, and on refusal, she lodged the report.


  7.                Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
  case, so also considering the law laid down by the Division
  Bench of this Court in the case of Amit Kumar Arun Kumar
  Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2014(4) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 788
  wherein in similar facts and circumstances, this Court, in order
  to give an end to the criminal litigation, quashed the F.I.R., we
  are of the firm view that no fruitful purpose would be served in
  prosecuting the applicants in the aforesaid crime. Hence, the
  following order :


                                    ORDER

i. The Criminal Application is allowed.

ii. The chargesheet and criminal proceedings bearing Special Atrocities Case No. 23/2016 arose out of the First Information Report No. 291/2015 dated 22/09/2015 registered at Police Station, Sadar, Dist. Nagpur for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge - 12, Nagpur, are quashed and set-aside.

8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (M.S. SONAK, J.)

Sumit