Ajay S/O Pralhadrao Tantarpale ... vs State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2068 Bom

Judgment                                                 apl1050.22

                                  1


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



           CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO. 1050/2022.

1.Ajay s/o Pralhadrao Tantarpale,
Age 33 years, Occupation - Advocate,

2.Pralhadrao s/o Mahadeovrao Tantarpale,
Age 70 years, Occupation - Retired,

3.Devkanya Pralhadrao Tantarpale,
Age 58 years, Occupation - Housewife,

Applicant 1 to 3 residents of Dildarpura,
Achalpur, Tq. Achalpur, District Amravati.

4.Sau. Rupali Devanand Devadekar,
Age 32 years, Occupation - Business.

5.Devanand s/o Kailas Devadekar,
Age 33 years, Occupation - Business,

Applicant No.4 and 5 residents of
Kawatha [BK], Tq. Chandur Bazar,
District Amravati.                           ...   APPLICANTS.


                              VERSUS


1.State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Frezarpura, Amravati
Tahsil and District Amravati.

Rgd.
     Judgment                                                   apl1050.22

                                     2


2.XYZ, [Victim] in Crime No.147/2022,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Frezarpura,
Amravati.                                     ...   NON-APPLICANTS


                          ---------------------------------
                 Mr. P.V. Navlani, Advocate for Applicants.
        Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, Addl.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1/State.
           Mr.P.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
                          ----------------------------------


                         CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
                                     VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
                         DATE     : MARCH 02, 2023.


ORAL JUDGMENT (PER , VINAY JOSHI, J.) :


               Considering the controversy involved in the matter, and

with consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective

parties, Criminal Application is taken up for final disposal at the

stage of admission.
[




               Admit.

2.             This is an application seeking to quash the first

information report bearing Crime No.147/2022 registered with the


Rgd.
 Judgment                                                         apl1050.22

                                    3

Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati for the offence punishable under

Sections 376[2][n], 417 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.


3.         It is the contention of applicants that the allegations made

in the first information report even if taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any

offence of rape. It is submitted that it is a case of love relationship,

however, out of misunderstanding a false report has been lodged.

Moreover, it is contended that by the time the informant lady has

realized her mistake about filing report in a heat of anger and

therefore, she has settled the matter and filed affidavit to that effect.


4.         The State has resisted this application by taking us

through the contents of first information report, and submitted that

the offence is of serious nature. The informant was 26 years of age

and it is her case that in the year 2014 she got acquainted with the

accused. Their casual acquaintance turned into love relationship,

and they were frequenting with each other. Both liked each other

and exchanged proposal for marriage.           In the year 2015, the


Rgd.
 Judgment                                                     apl1050.22

                                   4

applicant for the first time forcibly established sexual relation,

despite her refusal. It is informants' case that on 23.05.2021, in

pursuance of their understanding, engagement ceremony was

solemnized, however, lateron the applicant came to her house on

15.02.2022, and by raising dowry demand, refused to marry her,

therefore the report.



5.         The police have completed investigation and filed final

report in the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate.


6.         There is no dispute that the victim was major at the time

of occurrence. The first information report itself disclose that since

the year 2014 i.e. during the long span of 8 years both were in

relationship. Though in the first information report the victim has

stated that for the first time in the year 2015 the applicant had

forcible sexual intercourse, however, she never complained about

that. The material in first information report no where suggests that

under false pretext of marriage, the applicant has sexually abused

her.   Pertinent to note that on 23.05.2021, the engagement

ceremony was over, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant


Rgd.
 Judgment                                                      apl1050.22

                                   5

gave false promise of marriage. It reveals that for the reasons best

known to the parties, the relationship did not work, which resulted

into refusal of marriage.



7.         In a reported case of       Pramod Suryabhan Pawar .vrs.

State of Maharashtra and another - AIR 2019 SC 4010, the Supreme

Court has observed that consent of victim must have been obtained

under misconception of fact.      The relevant observations made in

paragraph no.18 reads as under :

              "18.          To summarise the legal position
              that emerges from the above cases, the
              "consent" of a woman with respect to Section
              375 must involve an active and reasoned
              deliberation towards the proposed act. To
              establish whether the "consent" was vitiated
              by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a
              promise to marry, two propositions must be
              established. The promise of marriage must
              have been a false promise, given in bad faith
              and with no intention of being adhered to at
              the time it was given.      The false promise
              itself must be of immediate relevance, or
              bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision

Rgd.
 Judgment                                                            apl1050.22

                                     6

                 to engage in the sexual act."


8.            On examination of facts, it reveals that there is no

material to hold that since inception the applicant has established

sexual relationship with deceitful intention. Rather the entire story

discloses that it was a long standing relationship, but, marriage could

not work out. The informant never stated in specific terms that only

because she was assured for marriage, therefore, she has submitted

herself to the applicant. Besides that the informant lady has filed an

affidavit stating that under misunderstanding, she has filed a report

and now she has no objection to quash the first information report.


9.            We have examined the material on merits and found that

even if the allegations are taken at their face value, it does not make

out a prima face case of rape. In the circumstances, we are inclined

to invoke our inherent jurisdiction. Hence the following order :


                                  ORDER

[i] Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of.

[ii] The first information report bearing Crime

Rgd.

Judgment apl1050.22

No.147/2022 registered with the Frezarpura Police

Station, Amravati for the offence punishable under

Sections 376[2][n], 417 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, and related criminal case bearing

R.C.C.No.1376/2022 pending on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati is hereby

quashed and set aside.

                                     JUDGE                       JUDGE




                         Rgd.

Signed By:RAKESH GANESHLAL DHURIYA Private Secretary High Court of Bombay, at Nagpur Signing Date:04.03.2023 14:35