Bombay High Court
Shubham Ravindra Kalbende And ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps ... on 7 March, 2022
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl112.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 112/2022
1] Shubham Ravindra Kalbende,
Aged 25 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. Ingle layout, Near Ngoba Mandir
Khamla, Nagpur
2] Gunjan Rajesh Asre,
Aged 25 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. 64/B, Adarsha Colony, Trimurti
Nagar, Nagpur
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Durgapur, District Chandrapur
.... NON-APPLICANT(S)
*******************************************************************
Shri A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for the Applicant(s)
Ms. M.A. Barabde, APP for the Non-applicant/State
*******************************************************************
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT BORKAR, JJ.
MARCH 07, 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT BORKAR, J.)
1] Heard.
2] RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
ANSARI
Judgment 2 apl112.22.odt
3] By this Application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the accused and the informant have jointly
challenged continuation of the proceedings initiated as per the Crime
No. 39/2018 with Non-Applicant - Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(1)(2)(n) & 506 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 66E, 67 & 67A of the Information Technology Act.
4] The first information report came to be registered against the
Applicant No. 1 with the accusations that the Applicant No. 1
committed forcible sexual intercourse with the Applicant No. 2 and
threatened not to disclose the incident to anyone. Thereafter, he repeated
forcible sexual intercourse with the Applicant No. 2 from time to time. It
is alleged that the Applicant No. 1 told the Applicant No. 2 that he had
sent the explicit video of the Applicant No. 2 to the third person and
forced the Applicant No. 2 to have sexual intercourse with the Applicant
No. 1. The Investigating Agency, after carrying out the investigation,
filed charge-sheet against the Applicant No. 1. During the pendency of
the proceedings, the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have mutually resolved their
dispute. The Applicants have therefore jointly filed the present
Application challenging continuation of the proceedings against the
Applicant No. 1.
ANSARI
Judgment 3 apl112.22.odt
5] Today, when the matter is called out, the Applicants are
present in the Court. The Applicant No. 2 stated before the Court that
she does not want to prosecute the Applicant No. 1 for the offences
alleged against him. She has stated that the first information report came
to be lodged due to anger out of frustration in love affair and the
instances quoted in the first information report were by consent of both
the parties.
6] We have carefully scrutinized the contents of the charge-
sheet filed against the Applicant No. 1. On careful perusal of the material
produced in the form of charge-sheet, we are satisfied that the incident of
sexual intercourse by the Applicant No. 1 with the Applicant No. 2 was
out of consent of the Applicant No. 2 and the first information report
came to be registered against the Applicant No. 1 due to anger out of
frustration in the love affair.
7] Insofar as the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code is concerned, though it is a serious offence, but at this stage it
would be profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & another
reported in AIR 2014 SCW 2065. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex
ANSARI
Judgment 4 apl112.22.odt
Court makes it clear that the Court cannot declare to quash the first
information report merely because the first information report
incorporates a particular provision which is a serious offence or an
offence against the society. The Court has to make an endeavour to find
out whether the first information report indeed discloses the ingredients
of such offence and the Court can accept the statement and quash the
first information report/charge-sheet after the Court is of the opinion that
such an offence is unnecessarily incorporated in the first information
report/charge-sheet. In the facts of the present case, though Section 376
of the Indian Penal Code is incorporated in the first information report,
the essential ingredients of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code are
missing.
8] From perusal of the first information report and the material
produced in the form of charge-sheet, we are satisfied that the ingredients
of the offences alleged against the Applicant No. 1 are not fulfilled. Since
the Applicants have mutually resolved their dispute, chances of
conviction are bleak.
9] In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Narinder Singh (supra) and in view of the settlement of
ANSARI
Judgment 5 apl112.22.odt
dispute between the parties, there is no impediment in quashing the first
information report and charge-sheet against the Applicant No. 1.
10] Hence, the following order is passed:-
F.I.R. No. 39/2018 registered with the Non-Applicant -
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
376(1)(2)(n) & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
66E, 67 & 67A of the Information Technology Act &
consequent Charge-sheet dated 16/04/2018 registered as
Sessions Trial No. 42/2018 pending on the file of District &
Sessions Court, Chandrapur against the Applicant No. 1 are
quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending
Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Signed By:AKRAM PARVEZ
MAQSOOD AHMAD ANSARI
Private Secretary to Hon'ble Judge
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:27
ANSARI
