[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Solemanraju S/O. Shriniwas Cholangi vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ramtek And Another on 23 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14848-DB
J-apl738.23 final.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.738 OF 2023
Solemanraju s/o. Shriniwas Cholangi,
Aged about 25 years,
Occupation : Education,
R/o. Kodamendhi,
Tah. Mauda, Distt. Nagpur. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through PSO Ramtek, Nagpur.
2. XYZ (Victim) through PSO
Ramtek in Crime No.203/22 (R),
dated 05.04.2022 : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Vikas Gadpayle h/f. Mr. Raju Kadu, Advocate for Applicant.
Mrs. Sneha Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant
No.1.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 11th DECEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd 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
present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code for quashing the First Information Report dated 5.4.2022
registered as Crime No.203/2022 with the Police Station Ramtek,
District Nagpur as also the charge-sheet dated 16.5.2022 bearing
No.62/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n)
read with Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections
3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as, "the Atrocities Act"). The applicant
further prays for quashing the proceeding before the learned
District Judge in Special Case No.251/2022.
3. As per the First Information Report lodged by
non-applicant No.2 against the applicant, the non-applicant No.2
was studying in a Engineering College, namely, Anjuman College of
Engineering and the applicant was known to her since July 2020. It
is further alleged that they had exchanged mobile numbers and
were in constant contact with each other, consequent to which a
love relationship developed between them. It is further alleged in
the First Information Report that on 28.8.2020 the applicant called
her to Chhoriya Garden at 4.00 p.m. and on the pretext of marrying
her took her to his room adjoining to the garden. In the said room,
he demanded sexual favours from her which she initially refused,
but when the applicant insisted on the pretext of marriage, they
established physical relations with her which were continued
thereafter from time to time. It is further alleged in the First
Information Report that the applicant lastly met the non-applicant
No.2 on 19th May, 2021 and thereafter for no reason started to
avoid her. The applicant also blocked the mobile phone number of
the non-applicant No.2. It is further stated in the First Information
Report that in the month of July 2021 and more particularly on
10.7.2021, the families of the applicant and non-applicant No.2 met
with each other to sort out the issue. But, the family members of
the applicant-accused plainly refused the proposal for marriage of
the family of non-applicant No.2 due to their caste. It is on these
allegations the First Information Report was lodged which is
challenged in the present application.
4. We have heard Mr. Vikas Gadpayle h/f. Mr. Raju Kadu,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Sneha S. Dhote, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1 and Ms.
Kirti Deshpande, learned counsel (Appointed) for non-applicant
No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the First
Information Report in question is nothing but falsity documented
since there were no physical relations at any point of time between
the applicant and non-applicant No.2. By taking us through the
previous mobile chats filed on record, learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the non-applicant No.2 is a girl of easy
virtues and is in habit of blackmailing persons. He submits that the
non-applicant No.2 has a tendency to harass and defame persons by
using social media and by creating a dummy account she had
posted some photographs of the applicant over social media. The
said photographs also included photographs of the friends of the
applicant and his sister. As the matter was reported to the Police
Station an offence was registered under Section 500 of the Indian
Penal Code read with Section 67 of the Information Technology
Act, 2000 vide Crime No.454/2021 in which the non-applicant No.2
came to be arrested. Thus, it is the submission of the applicant that
non-applicant No.2 to settle the scores with the applicant has filed
the present First Information Report which is nothing but far away
from truth. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the
applicant that the First Information Report and the consequent
criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
non-applicant No.1 on the other hand, submits that the First
Information Report and the charge-sheet which is filed after
completion of the investigation is sufficient enough to make out a
prima facie case against the applicant. She states that the fact that
the applicant and non-applicant No.2 were never indulged in
physical relations is a matter which is to be proved during the
course of the trial when evidence would be adduced by the
respective parties. She, therefore, prays for rejection of the
application.
7. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 while
supporting the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that
there is prima faice case against the applicant and only because
there was previous criminal proceedings against non-applicant No.2
cannot be a reason to doubt the veracity of the First Information
Report in question.
8. On the background of these facts we have perused the
material carefully. It is an admitted fact on record and as can be
seen from the supporting documents, that the non-applicant No.2
was prosecuted and was arrested in First Information Report lodged
by one Rajesh Nimbalkar (friend of the present applicant), wherein
she was arrested. The said offence was under Section 500 of the
Indian Penal Code read with Section 67A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000. In the said proceedings, the applicant had
recorded a statement wherein also he has specifically stated their
are no physical relations with him. It is further stated by her that it
was the non-applicant No.2 who was blackmailing her to perform
marriage with her otherwise she would commit suicide. This
statement of the applicant is recorded on 21.10.2021 much before
lodging of the First Information Report on 5.4.2022. Therefore,
some credence has to be given to the applicant in that regard.
9. Furthermore, even as per the allegations in the First
Information Report, the last meeting between the applicant and
non-applicant No.2 was in the month of July 2021 when the
families of the parties tried to resolve the dispute. The First
Information Report is lodged on 5.4.2022 is, therefore, after about
nine months of the date of incident creating a serious doubt about
the veracity thereof. Even the medical report filed with the present
application does not give any conclusive indication about the role of
the applicant even though it is record that the possibility of sexual
intercourse cannot be ruled out. Likewise statement of Rishikesh
Rajesh Nimbalkar, Shantanu Bhalchandra Bhadke gives support to
the story of the applicant that it was the non-applicant No.2 who
was trying to contact the applicant and pressurizing him. We have
also seen the WhatsApp chats filed by the applicant on record which
clearly indicate that it was the non-applicant No.2 who was
blackmailing the applicant from various mobile numbers, even after
the applicant was blocking the number from which there were
messages. From the tenor of the messages it is quite evident that it
is the non-applicant No.2 who from various mobile numbers was
trying the contact the applicant and was pressurized him for either
for money or for marrying him. Thus, the veracity made in the First
Information Report have been demolished by way of supporting
material filed by the applicant on record.
10. Furthermore, there is no material on record to show
that the relationship, if any, between the applicant and
non-applicant No.2 which subsequently turned sore was due to the
fact of the applicant belonging to a particular caste. There is
nothing to show either in the First Information Report and the
Charge-sheet that there was any intention to abuse the
non-applicant No.2 by her caste which is necessary ingredient to
attract offences punishable under the the Atrocities Act.
11. Thus, continuance of criminal proceedings against the
applicant which is a serious matter since summing the accused in a
criminal Court and making him face a criminal trial is a matter
which cannot be taken lightly as has been held by this Court and
the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time in various decisions.
Even though the power under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code is to be used sparingly, that would not deter us to
exercise the said power in the present case since, as stated above,
on the basis of material filed on record, we are of the considered
opinion that continuation of proceedings against the applicant
would amount to an abuse of process of Court.
12. We, therefore, pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The Final Report bearing charge-sheet
No.62/2022 filed in the First Information Report No.203/2022,
registered by the Police Station Officer, Ramtek for the offence
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the consequent criminal proceedings
bearing Special Case No.251/2022, pending before the District
Judge-10, Nagpur is quashed and set aside to the extent of
applicants, namely, Solemanraju s/o. Shriniwas Cholangi.
(iii) Fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and
paid as per the rules.
(iv) The application is disposed of.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/12/2025 16:43:29
