Bombay High Court
Dinesh Ashok Adagale vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Gittikhadan ... on 6 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11499-DB
J-apl458.23 final.odt 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.458 OF 2023
Dinesh Ashok Adagale,
Age : 31 years,
Occupation : Private,
R/o. Plot No.181,
Akhil Vishv Bhartia Society,
Hajari Pahad, Katol Road, Nagpur. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Station Officer,
Gittikhadan Police Station, Gittikhadan,
Dist : Nagpur, Maharashtra-441 011.
2. XYZ, Victim in Crime No.330/2022,
Registered with Police Station,
Gittikhadan, Nagpur. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Sankalp S. Meshram, Advocate for Applicant.
Mrs. Sneha S. Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.
Mr. Santosh R. Bhatkhore, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 06th OCTOBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 06th NOVEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This is an application seeking quashing and setting
aside the Charge-sheet bearing No.126/2022, dated 22.8.2022, for
the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, filed by Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur, in First
Information Report in connection with Crime No.0330/2022, dated
23.6.2022, registered with Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur, for
the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, which is registered as Sessions Case No.13/2023,
which is pending before the District Judge-12 and Additional
Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
3. As per the averments in the application, the applicant
was unemployed and used to seek employment during the corona
period. During this period when he had been to District Court,
Nagpur, he met with non-applicant No.2, who is working as
Constable in the Police Department. The non-applicant No.2 and
the applicant were knowing each other being the residents of the
same area. During the interaction non-applicant No.2 told him that
she is having good relations with her senior officials and she can
help him in obtaining the job of 'Sepoy' in the Police Department
but he would have to spend money for the same. The non-
applicant No.2 said that an amount of about Rs.10 to 12/- lakhs
would be required for securing the employment.
4. It is further averred in the application that the
applicant showed his inability to pay such a huge amount, but said
that he had only one plot which he has kept as a security for his
family. The non-applicant No.2 on realizing this fact stated that he
can transfer the said plot in her name, and will have to give other
documents to secure employment. Accordingly, non-applicant No.2
after gaining confidence of the applicant procured his original
documents like transfer certificate, caste certificate amongst others.
Thereafter, on 8.11.2021, non-applicant No.2 took the applicant to
meet one person in Civil Lines area and stated that the applicant is
the same person for whom he has to secure job. The said person
also assured the applicant of a job.
5. It is further stated in the application that when the
name of applicant did not figure in the list of selected candidates, it
prompted him to inquire about the same with the non-applicant
No.2 but she evaded his query. The applicant thereafter gradually
started realizing that he has been duped. Left with no alternative
he preferred an application on 6.12.2021 before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class bearing Misc. Application
No.4750/2021. However, the said application was rejected by the
said Magistrate on 25.2.2022. The applicant being aggrieved by
the said order preferred a Criminal Revision Application on
24.5.2022 bearing Criminal Revision No.135/2022.
6. It is alleged in the application that in the backdrop of
these facts the non-applicant No.2 being an employee of the Police
Department lodged a report with the non-applicant No.1 alleging
therein that applicant has committed offence punishable under
Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the said
First Information Report the non-applicant No.2 came in contact
with applicant from October 2018. The acquaintance grew in
friendship and then in love and they used to be in contact on
phone. It is further alleged in the First Information Report that the
applicant used to visit non-applicant No.2 at her quarter. On
16.10.2020, as per the First Information Report, the applicant came
at the quarter of non-applicant No.2 and stated that he has some
difficulty of accommodation and would stay at her quarter for 4-5
days. The non-applicant No.2 stated that she is a divorcee and the
applicant stated that he is not married. It is further alleged in the
First Information Report on 19.10.2020 both of them had physical
relations. On 21.10.2020 the applicant promised the non-applicant
No.2 that he would marry her and, on that pretext, continued to
establish physical relations with her till 30th March, 2022. The non-
applicant No.2 in her First Information Report further states that
however from month of April 2022 the applicant started avoiding
her and stated that he is already married and has a son. It is on
these allegations the First Information Report for offences
mentioned above is lodged. It is this First Information Report and
the consequent charge sheet which is challenged in the present
application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code.
7. We have heard Mr. Sankalp S. Meshram, Advocate for
applicant, Mrs. Sneha S. Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutore for
non-applicant No.1 and Mr. Santosh R. Bhatkhore, Advocate for
non-applicant No.2.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
First Information Report lodged against him is nothing but abuse of
process of law and assuming that there was a relationship, the
same was with full consent of non-applicant No.2. He further
submits that the F.I.R. is nothing but a counter-blast to the criminal
proceeding initiated by the applicant against the non-applicant
No.2. He, therefore, submits that the said F.I.R. and the consequent
Charge-sheet is liable to be quashed and set aside.
9. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, opposed the
submissions made by the counsel for the applicant and states that
on a plain reading of the First Information Report, the offence has
been made out. The non-applicant No.2 also supports the learned
A.P.P. and states that the applicant has committed an offence by
promising to marry the non-applicant No.2 and, therefore, the
offence is squarely made out.
10. We have carefully perused the charge-sheet and the
First Information Report filed on record. It is relevant to point out
that the age of the applicant is about 30 years and the age of the
non-applicant No.2 is about 32 years, a fact which has relevance in
the present matter. Thus, it is clear that both the applicant as well
as non-applicant No.2 are major, adult and are aware of the
consequences of their acts. The period during which they were
having relationship is about three and half years, since the
relationship, according to the non-applicant No.2, began in October
2020. It, therefore, doesn't appeal to logic that an adult lady
serving as a Police Constable is not aware about the marital status
of the applicant and has not made any efforts to ascertain the same
for more than three and half years. It can further be seen that
admittedly the applicant had initiated criminal proceedings against
non-applicant No.2 which irked her.
11. We have perused the statement of Chandra Khushalrao
Dhole, who has stated that the non-applicant No.2 had told her that
applicant used to come to her quarter for establishing physical
relations with her. We have also perused the statement of Dipika
Pralhadsingh Patle, who has also stated likewise. In this regard it is
noteworthy to mention that both these ladies are colleagues of the
non-applicant No.2 and their statements seem to be stereotyped.
Other statements like that of Jyotsna Lawatre and the mother of
the non-applicant No.2 do not inspire confidence and there is
nothing incriminating against the applicant.
12. The law regarding consent of a woman for entering
into and continuing a relationship is crystalized in many
judgements. In the Judgment of Pramod Surya Bhan Pawar Vs.
State of Maharashtra and another, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has 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.
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 the 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 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."
13. It thus the dictum of the Supreme Court that the
consent of a woman can be ascertained from attaining
circumstances and if a woman is getting engaged herself in a
physical amorous relationship out of her free will and volition and
that relationship continues for quite long period of time an
inference can be drawn about she having consented for that
relationship. From the facts on record and more particularly from
the fact that non-applicant No.2 is serving in Police Department
and looking at the age of the parties, we are of the view that the
relationship was consensual and, therefore, no offence under
Section 376 is made out against the applicant.
14. The case would squarely fall within the laid down
parameters of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and
others, reported in MANU/SC/0115/1992 and reiterated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments from time to time. The
continuance of criminal proceeding as against the applicant is
concerned, therefore, would be of abuse of process of law. We,
therefore, think it to be a fit case for quashing the charge-sheet
bearing No.126/2022 in First Information Report No.320/2022,
registered as Sessions Case No.13/2023, which is pending before
the District Judge-12 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur
against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections
376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, we proceed to pass
following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The Charge-sheet No.126/2022, dated
22.8.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code, filed by Police Station Gittikhadan,
Nagpur, in First Information Report in connection with Crime
No.0330/2022, dated 23.6.2022, registered with Police Station
Gittikhadan, Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections
376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside
which is registered as Sessions Case No.13/2023, which is pending
before the District Judge-12 and Additional Sessions Judge,
Nagpur.
(iii) The pending application, if any, is also disposed of.
(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: 06/11/2025 18:10:47
