[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Abhijeet W/O. Mahadeo Hete vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ganesh Peth ... on 8 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13814-DB
J-apl887.23 final.odt 1/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.887 OF 2023
Abhijeet s/o Mahadeo Hete,
Aged about 32 years,
Occupation: Service,
R/o. Ward No. 6, Sayog Nagar,
Tah. Dist. Wardha. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O.
Ganesh Peth Nagpur (City),
Tah. Dist. Nagpur.
2. XYZ - Victim,
F.I.R. No.0085/2023,
Police Station Ganeshpeth,
Nagpur (City), Tah. Dist. Nagpur. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Sachin W. Sambre, Advocate for Applicant.
Mrs. Sneha Dhote , Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant
No.1.
Mrs. Anuprita S. Mishrikotkar, Advocate for non-applicant No.2
(Appointed)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 19th NOVEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 08th DECEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The applicant has approached this Court by filing the
present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the First Information Report
dated 10.03.2023, registered as Crime No. 0085/2023, at Police
Station Ganeshpeth, Nagpur, for offences punishable under Sections
376(2)(n) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as also offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(1)(v), and
3(1) (u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The applicant has further
prayed for quashing of the Charge-sheet/Final Report bearing
No. 41/2023 dated 28.04.2023, wherein the offence under Section
3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been dropped, which is
pending before the 10th District Judge and Additional Sessions
Judge, Nagpur. The applicant has also prayed to grant stay to the
proceedings in Special Case No.230/2023 pending before the 10 th
District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is as under :
The non-applicant No. 2 states that she met the present
applicant during training programme at 3H System Institute, IT
Park, Ambazari, Nagpur. They became friends and their friendship
gradually culminated into a love affair. In July 2021, at Koradi
Mandir, Nagpur, the applicant allegedly confessed his love to the
non-applicant No.2 and expressed willingness to marry her. At that
time, the non-applicant No.2 informed the applicant about her caste
(Scheduled Caste) and also subsequently accepted his marriage
proposal. It is further alleged that on 11.06.2021, on the pretext of
discussing arrangements for their marriage ceremony, the applicant
allegedly took the non-applicant No.2 a Hotel and established
physical relations with her. It is further alleged that non-applicant
No.2 was in false belief of marrige and thus consented to marriage.
4. On 13.06.2021, the applicant allegedly called the non-
applicant No.2 to his residence at Wardha, where he again
established physical relations with her. Thereafter, in March 2022,
when the applicant began giving evasive answers regarding the
marriage, the non-applicant No.2 visited his residence. A quarrel
allegedly took place between her and the applicant's parents,
following which she lodged a First Information Report at Ram
Nagar Police Station, Wardha.
5. In conclusion, the non-applicant No.2 alleges that the
applicant established sexual relations with her on the false promise
of marriage and without her free will. She further alleged that the
applicant, despite being aware that she belonges to a Scheduled
Caste, took undue advantage of her and continued such relations.
Based on these allegations, the non-applicant No.2 lodged First
Information Report No. 0085/2023, which is under challenge in the
present application.
6. We have heard Mr. Sachin Sambre, learned Advocate
for the applicant, Mrs. Sneha Dhote, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the the non-applicant No.1/State, and Mrs. Anuprita
Mishrikotkar, learned appointed counsel for the non-applicant No.2.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant has submits as
follows :
The applicant is an Engineer by profession, employed
in a private organisation, and enjoys a respectable reputation in
society. He has no criminal antecedents. It is submitted that he has
been falsely implicated, necessitating the present application for
quashing. Both the parties were admittedly in a consensual love
relationship and the alleged physical relations occurred voluntarily.
The non-applicant no. 2 willingly consented to the said acts, and
her consent was not obtained through any coercion or deception.
8. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained
delay of 21 months in lodging the First Information Report. The
alleged incidents occurred on 11.06.2021 and 12.06.2021, whereas
the First Information Report was filed on 10.03.2023. This
indicates that the allegations are an afterthought story and lack
credibility.
9. It is further submitted that the non-applicant No.2 is a
well-educated and matured woman, holding an M.B.A. degree.
Therefore, it is rightly improbable that she was misled into sexual
relations under a misconception. It is also submitted that the
applicant and his family have repeatedly lodged reports against the
non-applicant No. 2, alleging that she has been publishing
defamatory content about them on Facebook, causing mental
harassment. It is further contended that the non-applicant No.2
had earlier filed a First Information Report dated 14.03.2022
against the applicant's family members, much before the First
Information Report in question. It is surprising to note that, in that
complaint, she did not mention anything regarding alleged sexual
relations under a false promise of marriage, which casts serious
doubt on the veracity of the present allegations.
10. On a bare perusal of the charge-sheet, it is evident that
there is no material to show that the non-applicant No. 2 had
disclosed her caste to the applicant. Hence, the offences alleged
under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, are baseless.
11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor strongly opposes the application and states that the
Investigating Officer has recorded statements of witnesses i.e.
Ms. Sonali Washimkar (sister), Mr. Roshan Patil (brother), and
Mr. Piyush Taksande (friend), who have corroborated that the
non-applicant No.2 narrated the incident to them. The statement of
Ms. Mohini Banode (receptionist of Krishna Hotel) confirms that
both the applicant and the non-applicant No.2 stayed at the hotel
after submitting their Aadhar cards. It is submitted that a prima
facie case is made out against the applicant and, therefore, the
application deserves to be rejected.
12. In the backdrop of these facts, we have carefully
examined the First Information Report as well as the charge-sheet.
It is undisputed that both the applicant and non-applicant No 2 are
major and mature individuals, aged 29 and 27 years respectively,
capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. It is
further to be noted that both the applicant and the non-applicant
No.2 are highly educated, qualified and come from respectable
strata of the Society. Considering their age and the duration of
their relationship, it appears that the physical relationship between
them was consensual and voluntary. It also appears that the First
Information Report came to be lodged only after the applicant
refused to marry with non-applicant No.2 and severed contact with
her.
13. Furthermore, no material is placed on record indicating
that the applicant gave false promise of marriage to the non-
applicant No. 2 and that her consent for physical relations was
obtained particularly through cheating and deception, more
particularly right from the inception of the relationship.
14. The question of voluntary consent or consent under a
misconception of fact has been settled in various judgments, such as
Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46, and
thereafter again in Dilip Singh alias Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Bihar,
reported in (2005) 1 SCC 88. Thereafter, in the celebrated
judgment of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
and another, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held in paras 8,10, and 13 as under :
"8. In deciding whether to exercise its jurisdiction
under Section 482, the Court does not adjudicate
upon the veracity of the facts alleged or enter into
an appreciation of competing evidence presented.
The limited question is whether on the face of the
FIR, the allegations constitute a cognizable offence.
As this Court noted in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar
v State of Maharashtra, ("Dhruvaram Sonar"):
10. Where a woman does not "consent" to the
sexual acts described in the main body of Section
375, the offence of rape has occurred. While
Section 90 does not define the term "consent", a
"consent" based on a "misconception of fact" is not
consent in the eyes of the law.
13. It is clear that for quashing proceedings,
meticulous analysis of the factum of taking
cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is not
called for. Appreciation of evidence is also not
permissible in the exercise of inherent powers. If
the allegations set out in the complaint do not
constitute. the offence of which cognizance has
been taken, it is open to the High Court to quash
the same in exercise of its inherent powers."
15. This understanding of consent has also been set out in
Explanation 2 of Section 375 (reproduced above). Section 3(1)(w)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 also incorporates this concept of consent :
"3(1)(w)-(i) intentionally touches a
woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such
act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without
the recipient's consent;
Explanation.- For sub clause (i), the
expression "consent" means an unequivocal
voluntary agreement when the person by words,
gestures, or any form of non-verbal
communication, communicates willingness to
participate in the specific act: Provided that a
woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe who does not offer physical
resistance to any act of a sexual nature is not by
reason only of that fact, is to be regarded as
consenting to the sexual activity: Provided further
that a woman's sexual history, including with the
offender shall not imply consent or mitigate the
offence;"
Furthermore, in the same judgment in para 16 the Hon'ble
Apex Court held as under :
"16. Where the promise to marry is false
and the 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 a
"misconception of fact" that vitiates the woman's
"consent". On the other hand, a breach of a
promise cannot be said to be a false promise. 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. The "consent" of a
woman under Section 375 is vitiated on the
ground of a "misconception of fact" where such
misconception was the basis for her choosing to
engage in the said act. In Deepak Gulati this Court
observed: (SCC pp. 682-84, paras 21 & 24).
"21. There is a distinction between the
mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false
promise. Thus, the court must examine whether
there was made, at an early stage a false promise
of marriage by the accused; and whether the
consent involved was given after wholly
understanding the nature and consequences of
sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the
prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on
account of her love and passion for the accused,
and not solely on account of misrepresentation
made to her by the accused, or where an accused
on account of circumstances which he could not
have foreseen, or which were beyond his control,
was unable to marry her, despite having every
intention to do so. Such cases must be treated
differently."
16. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate
evidence to show that at the relevant time, i.e., at the initial stage
itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever of keeping his
promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances
when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the
victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. A mere "failure
to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due
to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does
not always amount to a misconception of fact. To come within the
meaning of the term "misconception of fact", the fact must have an
immediate relevance. Section 90 I.P.C. cannot be called into aid in
such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten
criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact
that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended
to marry her."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. In para 18 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex
Court summarized the legal position as under :
"18. To summarize 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."
18. The allegations made in the First Information Report
are inherently improbable inasmuch as it is not expected of a lady
of 27 years of age, who is an M.B.A. Graduate, to continue with
physical relations under a false pretext of marriage. As also, it is
very surprising to know that the same lady was given false
assurances of marriage. In the backdrop of these facts we have no
option but to infer that the allegations, therefore, do not inspire
confidence and are inherently improbable in nature. Furthermore,
there is a considerable delay in loding F.I.R. which also casts doubt
on the veracity of the allegations. Thus, there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the applicant.
19. In our view, therefore, this is a fit case to quash the
charge-sheet/final report. Hence, we pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed to the extent of the
present applicant.
(ii) The Charge-sheet/Final Report dated
28.04.2023 in Crime No.41/2023 registered by the non-applicant
No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 of
the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii),
3(2)(5), of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed and set aside to the extent of
applicant.
(iii) The application is disposed of.
(iv) Parties to bear their own costs.
(v) Fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as
per rules.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/12/2025 10:35:36
