Bombay High Court
Deepak Shivaji Bidkar And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 July, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:29595-DB
DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4906 OF 2021
1. Mr. Deepak Shivaji Bidkar )
Age - 42 years, Occ : Service, )
R/at - Sakore Tal. - Ambegaon, )
Dist. - Pune )
2. Mr. Chandrashekhar Dattatray Hule )
Age-51 years, Occ : Secretary, )
R/at-Borivali, Dahisar, Borivali, Mumbai. )
3. Sau. Sangeeta Chandrashekhar Hule )
Age-48 years, Occu : )
R/at- Borivali, Dahisar, Borivali, Mumbai ) ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State Of Maharashtra )
Through P.S.I. Godegaon Police Station, )
Dist. - Pune (Notice to be served on the )
A.P.P. High Court Mumbai.) )
2. Mrs. Shubhangi Ramdas Mate @ )
Shubhangi Shankar Tavare )
R/at-In front of Tahsil office, Sanskar )
Laxmi prestige, "C" Wing, Room No.102, )
Ghoegaon Tal - Ambegaon, Dist.-Pune. ) ...Respondents
1/9
DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 967 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4906 OF 2021
Mrs. Shubhangi Ramdas Mate @ )
Shubhangi Shankar Tavare )
Age - 43 years, Occ. - Service, )
R/at-In front of Tahsil office, Sanskar )
Laxmi prestige, "C" Wing, Room No.102, )
Ghoegaon Tal - Ambegaon, Dist.-Pune. ) ...Applicant
(Ori. Respondent No.2/Complainant)
In the matter between
1. Mr. Deepak Shivaji Bidkar )
Age - 42 years, Occ : Service, )
R/at - Sakore Tal. - Ambegaon, )
Dist. - Pune )
2. Mr. Chandrashekhar Dattatray Hule )
Age-51 years, Occ - Secretary, )
R/at-Borivali, Dahisar, Borivali, Mumbai. )
3. Sau. Sangeeta Chandrashekhar Hule )
Age-48 years, Occu- )
R/at- Borivali, Dahisar, Borivali, Mumbai ) ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State Of Maharashtra )
Through P.S.I. Godegaon Police Station, )
Dist. - Pune (Notice to be served on the )
A.P.P. High Court Mumbai.) )
2/9
DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc
2. Mrs. Shubhangi Ramdas Mate @ )
Shubhangi Shankar Tavare )
R/at-In front of Tahsil office, Sanskar )
Laxmi prestige, "C" Wing, Room No.102, )
Ghoegaon Tal - Ambegaon, Dist.-Pune. ) ...Respondents
_____________________________________________
Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode a/w. Ms. Sheetal M. Ubale, for Petitioners.
Smt. Anamika Malhotra, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Uday B. Nighot, for respondent no.2.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 9th June 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th July 2025.
JUDGMENT ( Per : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) :
-
1) Present Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking
quashing of Sessions Case No. 20 of 2022, pending before the 4 th District
and Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, Pune, arising out of C. R.No. 90/2021
dated 12th April 2021 registered with Ghodegaon Police Station (Pune
Rural) for an offence punishable under Section 376, 376(2)(n), 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2) Present Petition was admitted by an Order dated 8 th August
2023 and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b)(i) was granted.
DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc
Pursuant to which there was stay to the proceedings of Sessions Case No.20
of 2022 pending before the 4th District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge,
Khed, Pune.
3) It is alleged in the First Information Report (FIR) by the
informant that, she was working in S. M. Joshi Residential School, Naroli,
so also, her husband was working as a teacher in the said school. In the
year 2011, Petitioner No.1 was Headmaster of the School. On 20 th April
2011, though it was a public holiday, yet Petitioner No.1 called informant to
school, under a false pretext. As informant went to the school, Petitioner
No.1 took her to a room in the school and committed rape on her. It is
further alleged that, Petitioner No.1 threatened informant that, since he was
the Headmaster, he would remove informant from the employment of the
School. It is also alleged that, after the said incident, Petitioner No.1
repeatedly committed rape on informant. The FIR further mentions that,
the informant narrated this fact to her husband. In turn, the husband of
informant informed the Management of the school about the offence
committed by the Headmaster.
3.1) The husband of informant was warned by the school that, he
should not inform the police. The informant and her husband were
threatened that, if they lodged any complaint, they would be removed from
their services. The FIR further mentions that, the co-accused/Petitioner
No.2, had also committed rape on informant from the year 2015 onwards
DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc
till the year 2020. It is further alleged that, in fact Petitioner No.3, who is
the wife of Petitioner No.2 had also helped Petitioner No.2 in committing
the said offence.
4) By an Order dated 11th June 2021, the learned Single Judge of
this Court allowed the pre-arrest bail application of Petitioner No.1 and by
an Order dated 18th June 2021 had allowed the pre-arrest bail application
of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
5) It is the case of Petitioners that, the alleged offence as
mentioned by informant as regards Petitioner No.1 could not be imagined
to have happened since it was not a holiday on 20 th April 2011. Further, in a
Residential School, there are always students and staff present in the school
premises. The husband of informant had taken up a loan from a Credit
Society, to which Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were the Guarantors. In order to
avoid payment of the loan, a false FIR has been lodged by informant against
Petitioners. The informant's husband had executed an Agreement dated 17 th
August 2020, wherein he accepted to make payment to Petitioner No.2. The
witness to the said Agreement was Petitioner No.1. However, the cheque
issued by the husband of informant was dishonored on presentation.
Petitioner No.2 had issued a Notice dated 6 th April 2021, as regards
dishonor of cheque. Only thereafter, on 12 th April 2021, the FIR had been
lodged, belatedly for alleged offences of the year 2011 and 2015.
6) Learned APP and learned Advocate appearing for informant
DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc
opposed the Petition. It is vehemently submitted, based on the allegations
made in the FIR, evidence has to be led and without leading evidence only
on the basis of statements, the FIR cannot be quashed.
7) We have heard the submissions of learned Advocates appearing
before us and have gone through the documents on record.
7.1) The FIR has been lodged on 12 th April 2021 for an offence
alleged to have been committed as regards Petitioner No.1 on 20 th April
2011 and as regards Petitioner No.2, from 2015 onwards till 2020. It
appears that no steps were taken for a long period by the informant to
lodge crime immediately or within reasonable period and there is a huge
unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.
7.2) The fact remains that, the husband of informant had taken loan
from a Credit Society, wherein Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were Guarantors.
There was default in payment of the loan amount and subsequently, there
was an agreement executed by informant's husband wherein he accepted
that, he would make payment to Petitioner No.2. The cheques amounting to
Rs.5,80,000/- issued in this regard, by the husband of informant were
dishonored and a Notice dated 6 th April 2021 was issued by Petitioner
No.2's Advocate. Immediately, thereafter FIR has been lodged on 12 th April
2021. Therefore, we find that there is force in the submissions of Petitioners
that, the FIR was nothing but the counterblast to the cheque dishonour
Notice issued by Petitioner No.2.
DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc
7.3) The informant's allegation as regards to Petitioner No.1 calling
her on a public holiday to the school and committing rape on her, appears
to be a palpable lie, since the date mentioned in the FIR i.e. 20 th April 2011,
was not a holiday and the school being a residential school, it is difficult to
believe that Petitioner No.1 committed rape when students and staff were
present within the school premises.
7.4) Surprisingly, in the FIR the wife of Petitioner No.2 i.e.
Petitioner No.3, has been mentioned as a person who has supported
Petitioner No.2 in the alleged offence committed under Sections 376,
376(2) (n), 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. From
perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet, in our opinion, it cannot be said that
any of the requirements of Section 376, 376 (2) (n), 506 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code are made out against Petitioners/Accused persons.
Except bald statement that the Accused have committed the offence, there
is not even iota of material to substantiate the basic allegation. The
allegations in the FIR appears to us, to be totally improbable.
8) The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs.
Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 in paragraph No.102 has given
category of cases wherein the extraordinary powers of the Courts under
Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, can be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the
ends of justice. In our view, the Ground Nos.5 and 7 of paragraph No.102,
DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc
would be applicable to the present proceedings. The said Ground No.5 and
Ground No.7 reads as under:-
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.
9) In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Abhishek versus
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2023) 16 SCC 666, the Supreme
Court followed the decision of Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) and held that, it was
not enough for the Court to look into the averment made in the FIR alone,
the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments made
and if need be with due care and circumspection to try and read between
the lines.
10) Taking into consideration the allegations made in the FIR, we
don't find sufficient grounds and/or reasons for proceeding against
Petitioners. The fact that the husband of informant had defaulted the loan
of Credit Society, for which Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were guarantors, we are
of the view that after the cheques issued by the husband of informant were
DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc
bounced, the FIR was lodged, only out of retaliation, for an alleged offence
committed 10 years ago. It is also pertinent to note that Petitioner No.3 is
wife of Petitioner No.2 and she has also been charged with offence
punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) read with 34 of the IPC for
having helped her husband to commit the crime. In the entire FIR, nothing
is stated as to why Petitioner No.3 allegedly helped her husband to commit
the crime for around five years ago and the FIR being lodged after much
delay. We are therefore satisfied that the prosecution has not made out any
case against Petitioners for any of the alleged offences.
11) We find merits in this Petition, hence the same stands allowed
in terms of prayer clauses (a), a(i) and a(ii).
11.1) The FIR No.90 of 2021, R.C.C. No.203/2021 and Sessions Case
No.20 of 2022 pending before the 4 th District Judge-II & Additional Sessions
Judge, Khed, Pune, stands quashed.
12) In sequel, the pending Interim Application No.967 of 2024 is
also disposed off.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/07/2025 21:15:31
