Bombay High Court
Samrudhha S/O. Murlidhar Telang vs State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps Wani ... on 30 August, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:9889-DB
Judgment 936 apl 300.24
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 300/2024
Samrudha s/o Murlidhar Telang,
A/a 32 yrs., Occ. Private Job,
R/o. near Buddha Vihar Samrat
Ashok Nagar, Ward No.7, Wani,
Dist. Yavatmal - 445304.
... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station - Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
2. XYZ,
Crime No. 973/2022, Police Station,
Wani, Dist. Yavatmal
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------
Mr. A. Vyas Advocate for applicant.
Mr. A.B. Badar, APP for non-applicant No.1.
Ms. A. Kolhe, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 30.08.2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Heard.
2. Admit.
Judgment 936 apl 300.24
3. This is an application seeking to quash Sessions Case No.
35/2023 arising out of Crime No. 973/2022 registered with Police Station
Wani, Dist. Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n),
417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is informed that till date charge has
not been framed by the Trial Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for applicant would contend that
it is a case of consensual relationship between the two adults. The First
Information Report ("FIR") and the material collected during the course of
investigation do not make out a prima facie case. It is submitted that the
report is lodged with oblique motive to settle the score.
5. The learned APP as well as the learned counsel for non-
applicant No.2 has resisted the application by submitting that reading of
FIR indicates that under false pretext of marriage, the applicant has sexual
abused the lady. It is submitted that the supplementary statement discloses
that not only under promise but also by use of force, the lady has been
abused. Lastly it is contended that there is ample material to make out
prima facie case. Hence, quashing may not be permitted.
Judgment 936 apl 300.24
6. With the assistance of both sides, we have gone through the
entire police paper. The informant lady aged 28 years has lodged report on
30.12.2022. It is her case that at the relevant time, she was college going
girl. She accidentally met with the applicant in one marriage ceremony few
years before police report. On an often, they interacted and later on love
relationship was developed. The informant stated that on 10.06.2019, the
applicant telephonically called her at his house and by assuring for marriage
had established sexual relation. Then, on and often for the period of three
years, they had physical relationship. It is her contention that on
21.04.2022 at the time of her engagement ceremony with someone else, the
applicant arrived, interrupted and assured to marry, but later on denied,
hence report.
7. Precisely, it is alleged that though both were in love relationship,
on 10.06.2019, the applicant expressed his desire to marry and had sexual
relation which continued for next three years. The Investigating Agency has
recorded statement of some other witnesses, but they are quiet insignificant
having regard to the nature of allegation. The informant in her initial
statement, never expressed that she was exploited by use of force. We have
gone through statement of informant recorded by the Magistrate in terms of
Judgment 936 apl 300.24
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code"). In the said
statement she never stated that under the pretext of marriage, the applicant
had established relationship. Rather the statement conveys that they had a
long standing lover affair, but finally the applicant refused to marry.
8. In the like cases, the central issue is whether the consent of lady
was obtained by deceitful means. Besides that it is important to note
whether lady has submitted herself only because she has believed the
promise to marry and in that case only the consent would vitiate. Taking
over all view of the matter, it reveals that the informant was well matured
college going lady. She had maintained relationship for long period of three
years. She used to visit the applicant where both of them established
physical relation. Notably, the informant has opted to marry with someone
else and accordingly her engagement was fixed on 21.04.2022. This fact is
indicative that the informant has not seriously believe on the promise to
marry as her marriage was settled elsewhere.
9. The learned counsel appearing for applicant relied on the
decision of the Supreme Court in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State
of Maharashtra and another, (2019) 9 SCC 608 to contend that there is
distinction between false promise and breach of promise. Unless the
Judgment 936 apl 300.24
applicant carries deceitful intention since beginning consent would not
vitiate. The law in this regard is summarized in para 18 of the decision
which reads as below:-
"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 to engage in the sexual act."
10. In order to attract the penal consequence, the promise to marry
must be false promise given in bad faith. In case at hand, the reading of FIR
couple with statement under Section164 of the Code never indicates that
because of only the applicant assurance for marriage, she consented. Rather
it emerges that it was a love affair between two young matured which was
maintained for long and thus, there is no prima facie material to constitute
the offence.
Judgment 936 apl 300.24
11. Inherent powers of this Court are widely vested with the aim to
secure ends of justice and to ensure that the process of law is not abused.
Taking over all view of the matter, it emerges that it is a case of consensual
relationship. The material is not indicative of any deceitful means on the
part of the applicant. The case squarely false in category Nos. 1 and 3 of the
guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.
12. In view of above, a case is made out to invoke our inherent
powers. The application is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside Sessions
Case No. 35/2023 arising out of Crime No. 973/2022 registered with
Police Station Wani, Dist. Yavatmal for the offence punishable under
Sections 376(2)(n), 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
13. Fees to the learned appointed counsel appearing for non-
applicant No. 2 be paid as per Rules.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/09/2024 15:34:29
