[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Hitesh S/O Ashokrao Mahajan vs State Of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Jaripatka, ... on 23 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14827-DB
Cri. APL276.25.odt 1/14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO. 276/2025
1. Hitesh S/o Ashokrao Mahajan,
Aged about 27 years, Occ- Service,
R/o. At post Sirasgao, Taluka Hinganghat,
District Wardha. Presentlly residing at
C/o - Satyajeet Barokar behind Gajanan
Sabhagruh, Manewada Road,
Nagpur
... APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State Of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur.
2. Informant in F.I.R. No. 434/2021,
registered at Police Station Jaripatka,
Nagpur.
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sameer P. Sonwane along with Amit Thakur and Shiba Thakur,
Advocate for applicant
Mr. A. G. Mate, APP for non-applicant/State
Ms. Lata Tiple, Advocate for non-applicant no.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 09th DECEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd DECEMBER, 2025.
Cri. APL276.25.odt 2/14
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. The Applicant has approached this Court by filing the present
application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for quashing and setting aside of the First Informa-
tion Report bearing Crime No. 434/2021 dated 18.07.2023, regis-
tered by the Police Station Jaripatka, District Nagpur, for the
offences punishable under sections 376, 376(2)(n), 313, 417 and
34 of Indian Penal Code,1860. The Applicant has further prayed for
quashing of R.C.C. bearing No. 4377/2021 (State Vs Hitesh
Mahajan), which is presently pending before the Learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class Court No.-7, Nagpur.
3. As per the case of non-applicant No. 2 and contents of the
impugned First Information Report, the applicant and non-applicant
no. 2 are from the same village and studied together from 5th to
10th standard. They were in a love relationship and met frequently.
On 31.03.2021 at about 9:00 p.m., the applicant arrived outside the
hostel of non-applicant No. 2 to pick her up, assured her of
marriage, and insisted her to accompany him to his room for physi-
cal relations. Trusting this assurance, non-applicant No. 2 visited his
room frequently and established physical relations.
4. It is stated that on 06.06.2021, non-applicant no. 2 came to
know that she was pregnant and she immediately informed the
applicant about her pregnancy over the phone. Subsequently, on
08.06.2021, at about 9.00 a.m., the applicant called non-applicant
no. 2 to his room. The sisters and the brother-in-law of the
applicant were already present in the room of the applicant. It is
stated that they assured the non-applicant no. 2 for marriage with
the applicant after his sister's wedding and asked her to abort the
pregnancy. It is alleged that the applicant administered abortion
pills to the Non-applicant No. 2. It is further stated that post such
incident, the applicant started avoiding non-applicant no. 2. As a
result of such avoidance, a meeting was called before Sarpanch of
village, wherein the applicant refused to marry non-applicant no. 2.
Aggrieved by this, she has filed the a First Information Report in
which is under challenge in the present application.
5. We have heard Mr. Sameer Sonwane, Advocate for applicant,
Mr. A. G. Mate, Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Ms. Lata
Tiple, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2.
6. Mr. Sameer Sonwane, Learned Counsel for the Applicant
submits that the entire First Information Report is false and fabri-
cated. It is submitted that after reading the contents of the said First
Information Report, it is by far a case of consensual love affair
between the applicant and non-applicant no. 2. The applicant had
no intention of deceiving the non-applicant no. 2, however, as
things did not materialize, it was not possible for the applicant to
marry her.
7. It is further submitted that the applicant and non-applicant
no. 2 have known each other since their school days, having studied
together from 5th to 10th standard, and their love affair continued
since then. During the course of the relationship, the applicant
discovered that non-applicant no. 2 was simultaneously involved
with other persons. The applicant was also shown chats and
screenshots of the alleged involvement with other people.
Consequently, the relationship became strained and further
continuance of the relationship was not reasonable.
8. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant further submits that
this court, vide its order dated 22.04.2024 in Criminal Application
No. 1084/2023 arising from the same First Information Report (Arti
Mahajan & Two Others Vs. State & One), quashed and set aside the
said report. Thus the present application also deserves to be placed
on similar footing.
9. Lastly, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant has placed re-
liance on the following judgments to support his contentions:
i. Deepak Gulati Versus State of Haryana, reported in
(2013) 7 SCC 675,
ii. Naim Ahamad Versus State (NCT of Delhi), reported in
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65,
iii. Pramod Surybhan Pawar Versus State of Maharashtra
and Anr., reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608, and
iv. State of Haryana and Others Versus Bhajanlal, Criminal
Application (APL) No. 128/2020 decided on 10.11.2025.
10. Mr. A. G. Mate, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-
applicant no. 1/State, has strongly opposed the contentions ad-
vanced by the Learned Counsel for the applicant. He submits that
the investigating agency was fully justified in registering the of-
fenses as alleged in the First Information Report dated 18.07.2021.
11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that during the
course of investigation, non-applicant no. 2 was sent for medical
examination and the medical report specifically mentioned that
hymen of non-applicant no. 2 was found to be torn and possibility
of medical abortion cannot be ruled out.
12. Further it is submitted that the statements of various
witnesses were recorded, which clearly state that it is the applicant
who asked non-applicant no. 2 to get her child aborted on the
pretext that only after abortion they could perform the marriage.
The applicant gave pills for abortion to non-applicant no. 2 and
after abortion was done, the behavior of the applicant changed.
Thus, there is ample material available against the present appli-
cant.
13. From the facts that stand admitted and the evidence ad-
duced, it becomes abundantly clear that the applicants are major,
well educated and mature enough to understand the implications of
their conduct. From 19.05.2019, both parties were admittedly in
love with each other. Throughout this protracted period, non-appli-
cant no. 2 actively and voluntarily participated in regular meetings
and continued communication with the applicant. This unbroken
chain of voluntary interaction and continued intimacy long after the
alleged incident completely belies any claim of forcible intercourse
or of consent having been vitiated by a false marriage promise.
14. The concept of 'Consent' has been elaborated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Samadhan Manmothe v. State of Ma-
harasthra & another, 2025 INSC 1351 which reads as under:
38. At this stage it is material to refer to the decision of this
Court in Mahesh Damu, wherein the following observa-
tions were made:
"29. It must also be clear that for a promise to be a
false promise to amount to misconception of fact within
the meaning of Section 90IPC, it must have been made
from the very beginning with an intention to deceive the
woman to persuade her to have a physical relationship.
Therefore, if it is established that such consent was
given under a misconception of fact, the said consent is
vitiated and not a valid consent. In this regard we may
refer to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [Deepak Gu-
lati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 : (2013) 3
SCC (Cri) 660], in which it was held as follows: (SCC
pp. 682-84, paras 21 & 24)
"21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or
misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent
is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the
mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on
each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and
consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must
very carefully examine whether the accused had actually
wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives,
and had made a false promise to this effect only to sat-
isfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheat-
ing or deception. 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 conse-
quences 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 cir-
cumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which
were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, de-
spite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be
treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape
only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention
of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandes-
tine motives.
24. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate ev-
idence 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 vari-
ous unavoidable circumstances. The '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 misconception of
fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term
"misconception of fact", the fact must have an immedi-
ate relevance'. Section 90 IPC 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."
Further, the Apex Court, in the same judgment, in para 27, ob-
served that:
27. In this regard, it becomes relevant to refer to the deci-
sion of this Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare vs.
State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398, ("Mahesh
Damu") wherein the following observations were made:
"27. In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual
relationship by making a false promise of marriage and
if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical re-
lationship must be traceable directly to the false promise
made and not qualified by other circumstances or con-
sideration. A woman may have reasons to have physical
relationship other than the promise of marriage made by
the man, such as personal liking for the maHitesh S/o
Ashokrao Mahajanle partner without insisting upon for-
mal marital ties.
28. Thus, in a situation where physical relationship is
maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the
woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said
physical relationship was purely because of the alleged
promise made by the appellant to marry her. Thus, un-
less it can be shown that the physical relationship was
purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby hav-
ing a direct nexus with the physical relationship without
being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot
be said that there was vitiation of consent under miscon-
ception of fact."
15. As far as Section 313 is concerned, it is significant to observe
that non-applicant no. 2 is a Nurse, possessing considerable
knowledge of abortion pills and its ramifications. Furthermore, the
concerned First Information Report contains no assertion that she
was coerced into consuming the pills. Thus, to substantiate the
offense under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be
demonstrated that the medication was administered without the
victim's consent but here non-applicant no.2 willingly took the
abortion pills.
16. Concerning the accusation of cheating under Section 417 of
Indian Penal Code, such an offense would materialize only if the
prosecution can demonstrate that non-applicant No. 2 was manipu-
lated through deceitful intent to consume the medication based on a
promise of marriage, which she would either have refused is there
was absence of such inducement. However, the record reveals that
the relationship between the applicant and non-applicant No. 2 was
acknowledged by both families.
17. Further, this Court, vide order dated 22.04.2024 in Criminal
Application No. 1084 of 2023 arising out of the same First
Information Report, has already quashed the proceedings against
the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely Arti Ashokrao Mahajan, Pooja
Pankaj Padole, Nakul Devidasji Ambatkar, who are the sisters and
the brother-in-law of the present applicant.
18. In light of the reasoning articulated hereinabove and having
regard to the judgment dated 22.04.2024 rendered in Criminal Ap-
plication No. 1084 of 2023, this Court is of the considered view that
the First Information Report in question is devoid of any merit and
thus the same deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the present ap-
plication is allowed.
19. In our view, therefore, this is a fit case to quash the charge-
sheet and R.C.C. No. 4377/2021 pending before the learned Judi-
cial Magistrate First Class Court No. -7. Hence, we proceed to pass
the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) First Information Report bearing Crime No. 434/2021 dated
18.07.2023, registered by the Police Station Jaripatka, District
Nagpur, for the offences punishable under sections 376, 376(2)(n),
313, 417 and 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 and R.C.C. No.
4377/2021 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class Court No. -7 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of
applicant namely - Hitesh S/o Ashokrao Mahajan .
(iii) Application is allowed and disposed of in above said terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Shubham
