Bombay High Court
Parotosh S/O Deepak Dange vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso ... on 2 September, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 27-cr-apl-498-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 498 OF 2021
Paritosh S/o. Deepak Dange,
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Private,
R/o. Plot No. 11, Revati Nagar,
Besa, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur. . . . APPLICANT
...V E R S U S..
1. State of Maharashtra through
PSO Kapil Nagar, Nagpur
2. Rati D/o. Haridas Nagdeote,
Aged about 31 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. C/o. Raju Bankar,
69, Chaitanya Nagar, Prabhat Colony,
Teka Naka, Nagpur. . . . NON-APPLICANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. M. Jaltare, Advocate for applicant.
Shri S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
Shri E. S. Sahasrabuddhe, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 02.09.2021
JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2 27-cr-apl-498-21.odt
3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging registration of the
First Information Report (FIR) No. 126/2021 against him registered
with the non-applicant no. 1-Police Station for the offence punishable
under Sections 376, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The FIR came to be registered against the applicant with
accusations that the non-applicant no. 2 is a divorcee and had obtained
divorce from her first husband. The applicant is her childhood friend
and met her through Social Media App on 11.04.2020, and thereafter
they were in relationship. It is alleged that on 15.08.2020, the
applicant came to the house of the non-applicant no. 2 and had
forcible sexual intercourse with the non-applicant no. 2 on promise of
marriage. Thereafter, there were repeated instance of sexual
intercourse on the promise of marriage. It is alleged that the non-
applicant no. 2 went to different places with the applicant and had
sexual intercourse with the applicant. It is alleged that on 25.11.2020,
the applicant applied with the Registrar office for registration of their
marriage on 25.11.2020. It is alleged that the applicant and the non-
applicant no. 2 had performed marriage on 06.01.2021. It is alleged
that there after the non-applicant no. 2 continued to reside with her
parents but, the applicant was visiting the non-applicant no. 2. It is
alleged that from 11.03.2021, the applicant refuse to contact the non-
3 27-cr-apl-498-21.odt
applicant no. 2. It is alleged that the applicant portrayed himself to be
Nayab Tahsildar and working at Wardha but, actually he was not
employed and is appearing for competitive examinations. It is alleged
that from 15.08.2020 till 10.03.2021, the applicant had forcible sexual
intercourse with the non-applicant no. 2 on the promise of marriage
and by portraying that he is Nayab Tahsildar. The applicant has
therefore challenged registration of the FIR by filing the present
application.
5. This Court on 29.04.2021 issued notice to the non-
applicants and by way of interim order, it was directed that charge-
sheet shall not be filed without leave of the Court. The non-applicant
no. 1 has filed reply stating that the Investigating Officer has recorded
statement of the witnesses and there is sufficient material available
against the applicant to continue prosecution against them.
6. We have heard learned Advocates for both the parties. We
have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR and reply filed by
the non-applicant no. 1. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that the
non-applicant no. 2 was in relationship with the applicant from
15.08.2020 till 10.03.2021. From the averments made in the FIR, it
appears that the applicant and the non-applicant no. 2 had performed
Court marriage on 06.01.2021. The FIR indicates that the applicant
and the non-applicant no. 2 had physical relationship for more than
4 27-cr-apl-498-21.odt
one year. The FIR also discloses that the applicant had promised to
perform marriage and accordingly he performed marriage with the
non-applicant no. 2 on 06.01.2021. We are therefore satisfied that the
relationship between the non-applicant no. 2 and the applicant is
consensual in nature spreading over more than one year and
subsequently the applicant and the non-applicant no. 2 got married.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608, in a
similar situation had quashed the First Information Report against the
applicant therein. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case has held
that, where the promise to marry is false and intention of the maker at
the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but, to
deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there
is "misconception of fact" that vitiates the woman's consent. It is
further held that mere breach of promise cannot be said to be false
promise. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that to establish a false
promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of
upholding his word at the time of giving it. In the facts of the present
case, we are satisfied that there is no material on record to show that
at the time of inception of relationship, the applicant had no intention
to perform marriage with the non-applicant No.2. We are therefore,
5 27-cr-apl-498-21.odt
satisfied that the continuation of the proceedings against the applicant
would amount to abuse of process of Court.
8. We, therefore, pass the following order:-
First Information Report No 126/2021 registered against
the applicant with the non-applicant no. 1-Police Station for the
offence under Sections 376, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is
quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above term.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
