Bombay High Court
Mangesh Pradiprao Prashivkar And ... vs The State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Khallar ... on 6 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11516-DB
3 apl 349.23.odt..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 349 OF 2023
1. Mangesh Pradiprao Parshivkar
Aged about 34 years,
Occupation : Private
2. Kamalpushpa @ Kausalya Pradiprao
Parshivkar
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation: Private
Both R/o Khallar, Tah.
Daryapur
District Amravati APPLICANTS
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Khallar,
Distt. Amravati Rural
2. XYZ (Victim Crime No.0041/2022)
Police Station Khallar,
District Amravati
NON-APPLICANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Anil Dhawas, Advocate for the applicants.
Ms H.N. Prabhu, APP for non-applicant Nos.1/State.
Ms Seema P. Dhotre, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 apl 349.23.odt..odt
2
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.J.
JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON : 25.09.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:- 06.11.2025
O R A L J U D G M E N T : (PER : NANDESH DESHPANDE J.)
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
3. The applicants have approached this Court by filing
the present application under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, for quashing the First Information Report dated
31.01.2022 registered as Crime No.0041/2022 with Police Station
Khallar, District Amravati Rural, for offences punishable under
Sections 376(2)(n), 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
'IPC') and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(1)(r), and
3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities ) Act, 1989, and also the charge-sheet bearing
No.41/2022 dated 31.01.2022 and proceedings pending before
the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2 & Additional Sessions Judge,
Achalpur, District Amravati.
3 apl 349.23.odt..odt
3
4. As per the contents of the said First Information
Report non-applicant No.2 lodged the report stating therein that
she came in contact with applicant No.1 in the year 2012 when he
visited her office for repairing of printer. Thereafter they
developed friendship and remained in touch through the phone
calls. It is further alleged that in the year 2015 while complainant
was working in the shop of the applicant No.1 i.e. Smart
Computers, Amravati, the said applicant expressed his intention
to marry her and under the said pretext established physical
relations with her.
5. When the complainant realized that she has been
deceived she lodged a report for offences punishable under
Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and relevant
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act,
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the said complaint
was later withdrawn by non-applicant No.2 after applicant No.1
gave written undertaking before this Court to marry her. It is
further stated in the First Information Report dated 25.01.2022,
applicant No.1 again invited the non-applicant No.2 to his house at
3 apl 349.23.odt..odt
4
Village Khallar on the pretext of marriage and forcibly established
sexual relations with her. He also threatened to make her
photographs viral. It is also alleged in the First Information Report
that when the non-applicant No.2 at later point of time visited
applicant's house, his mother i.e. applicant No.2. abused her on
caste and threatened her with dire consequence death, if she
married the applicant No.1. On these allegations FIR bearing
No.0041/2022 is lodged. It is this FIR and the consequent charge-
sheet which is registered as Special Case No.39/2022 is challenged
before this Court by way of present application.
6. We have heard Mr. Anil Dhawas, learned counsel for
the applicants, Smt. H.N. Prabhu, learned APP for the State and
Smt. Seema P. Dhotre, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants states that
meaningful reading of the First Information Report would reveal
that no offence is made out under various Sections as alleged in
the FIR. He further states that relationship between applicant No.1
and complainant/ non-applicant No.2 is consensual and
3 apl 349.23.odt..odt
5
admittedly, they are matured and adult persons knowing the
consequences of indulging in such relationship. It is further
submitted that applicant No.2 has no role in the alleged offence as
per contents of the First Information Report. In the submission of
learned counsel for the applicants the provisions of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 are not attracted since First Information Report lacks
essential ingredients such as public humiliation or abuse and fails
to mention the caste of the non applicant No.2, which is a pre
requisite for Atrocities Act. It is therefore, his submission that even
the complaint lodged by non-applicant No.2 is perused in its
entirety does not make out a case for the offence punishable under
various sections. He further submits that earlier First Information
Report bearing No.2/2022 was quashed by this Court pursuant to
a compromise that the parties agreed to marry supported by
affidavits wherein it was specifically admitted that allegations
were false and made due to misunderstanding.
8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions of the counsel for
3 apl 349.23.odt..odt
6
the applicants. She submits that it was physical relation on the
false promise of marriage and intention to deceive was from the
initiation of the said relationship. Learned counsel for non-
applicant No.2 while supporting learned Additional Public
Prosecutor states that non-applicant No.2 replied to the notice
dated 01.12.2020. She further submits that there was no genuine
intention on the part of applicant No.1 to marry non-applicant
No.2 and to lead a harmonious marital life.
9. In the backdrop of these submissions we have perused
the FIR and consequent charge-sheet. As can be seen from the
said charge-sheet FIR in question is lodged by non-applicant No.2
who at the time of lodging of the same is of 28 years age, while
applicant No.1 is 34 years of age. It is thus obvious that both of
them are adult, major and able to understand the consequences of
any act or omission to be done by them. The controversy in the
present matter is to be decided in the backdrop of these facts. In
the conspectus of these facts, the relationship is between two
adults and major persons who are well aware of the consequences
3 apl 349.23.odt..odt
7
of their relationship still they ventured to enter into that
relationship out of their free will.
10. In the celebrated judgment of Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2019) 9
SCC 608 dealing with the case laws related to the subject this
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 promise cannot be said to be 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 and 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
3 apl 349.23.odt..odt
8
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.
24. 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. 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 term "misconception of fact", the fact
must have an immediate 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."
18. To summarise 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 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."
3 apl 349.23.odt..odt
9
11. In the backdrop of these facts, if we analyze the
material collected by the prosecution the only and inevitable
conclusion is that non-applicant No2 and applicant No.1
were engaged in consensual physical relationship voluntarily
and out of their own free will. It is non-applicant No.2 has
voluntarily accorded her consent to quash the charge-sheet in
question in the earlier round of litigation. Furthermore, there
is no averment that the non-applicant No.2 was abused by
the name of her caste in public view. Therefore, offences
under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities ) Act, 1989 are also not made out.
12. In the judgment of Gian Singh vs State of
Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 the Hon'ble Supreme
has stated that even a non-compoundable offence can be
quashed if the continuation of the criminal proceedings will
be exercised in futility. In our view this is a fit case where
continuation of the process would be an exercise in futility
and this can be termed as vehicle for vengeance. Thus the
3 apl 349.23.odt..odt
10
continuation would amount to an abuse of process of Court.
It would be therefore, a fit case to exercise powers under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure continuation would
amount to nothing but an abuse of process of law. We,
therefore pass the following the order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.0041/2022 for offences punishable under Sections
376(2)(n), 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(va),
3(1) w(i), 3(1) w(ii), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled
castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act,
1989) registered against the present applicants by Police
Station Officer Khallar Dist. Amravati Rular and consequent
charge-sheet and entire proceedings bearing Special Case
No.39/2022 be quashed and set aside to the extent of
applicants.
13. The criminal application stands disposed of.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J] [ URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/11/2025 19:44:15
