The State Of Maharashtra vs Balaji @ Balasaheb Vyankatrao Perke
2024 Latest Caselaw 25940 Bom

Bombay High Court

The State Of Maharashtra vs Balaji @ Balasaheb Vyankatrao Perke on 20 September, 2024

Author: Shivkumar Dige

Bench: Shivkumar Dige

2024:BHC-AUG:22489


                                                                                wp76.17-
                                                 -1-


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          921 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 76 OF 2017


                 The State of Maharashtra                       ...Petitioner

                      Versus

                 Balaji @ Balasaheb Vyankatrao Perke
                 Age 30 years, Occ. Service,
                 Police Head quarter,
                 Sayan Worli, Mumbai
                 R/o. Pratapnagar, Nandkheda Road,
                 Parbhani                                       ...Respondent

                                                     ...
                 A.P.P. for the Petitioner : Mrs. M. L. Sangit
                 Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Manish P. Tripathi
                                                     ...

                                            AND
                            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 938 OF 2017


                 Janabai Kishanrao Gaikwad
                 Age 35 years, Occ. Nil,
                 R/o. Nandkheda,
                 Tq. and district Parbhani                      ...Petitioner

                      versus

                 1.   The State of Maharashtra
                      Through Parbhani (Rural) Police
                      station,

                 2.   Balaji @ Balasaheb Vyankatrao Perke
                      Age 35 years, Occ. Service,
                      R/o. Nandkheda Road, Pratap Nagar,
                      Parbhani, District Parbhani
                      serving at Arms Police Head Quarter
                      Worli, Mumbai                             ...Respondents
                                                                wp76.17-
                                   -2-



                                ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Someshwar S. Birajdar h/f Mr.
Sudhir K. Chavan
APP for Respondent No.1: Mrs. M.L. Sangit
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Manish P. Tripathi
                              .....

                            CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                            DATED : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1. By these two writ petitions, the State and the informant have

challenged the common order dated 30.7.2016 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani below Exh.1 and 9 in Sessions

Trial No. 110 of 2013, discharging the accused-respondent for the

offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 of Indian Penal Code

(for short "I.P.C.").

2. Since the impugned orders are common in these two writ

petition, both these writ petitions are being decided by this common

order.

3. It is the contention of the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel

for the petitioner that that the respondent sexually assaulted the

informant on various occasions with promise of marriage but

thereafter he refused to perform marriage with her. There are

statements of witnesses to show that there was sexual assault made wp76.17-

by the respondent on the informant. The respondent is working in

police department. For some period, there was break up in relations

between the informant and the respondent but thereafter again he

sexually assaulted the informant. But the learned Sessions Judge

has not considered this fact and has discharged the respondent from

the charges levelled against him, which is erroneous. Whether the

physical relationship were under the promise of marriage, it can be

proved through the evidence only but it is not considered by the

Sessions Court and has passed the impugned order. Hence,

requested to allow the writ petitions.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that

the physical relations between the informant and the respondent

were for nine years. The informant was already married so no

question of giving false promise of marriage arises. The relations

between the informant and the respondent were consensual. The

informant is major. The learned Sessions Judge has passed a well

reasoned order. No interference is required in it and requested to

dismiss the writ petitions.

5. I have heard all the learned counsel. Perused the impugned

order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. While passing the

impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the wp76.17-

informant is major. The relationship between the informant and the

respondent were consensual. They were in relationship for nine

years. The informant was already married; hence, no question of

giving promise of marriage arises. On these grounds, the learned

Sessions Judge has discharged the respondent from the charges

levelled against him. In my view, the informant is major. The physical

relationship between the informant and the respondent were for nine

years. The informant was already married so no question of promise

of marriage arises. Considering these facts, I do not find any merit in

the petitions and I pass the following order:-

ORDER

Both the writ petitions are dismissed.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

rlj/