Bombay High Court
Shweta D/O Subhash Raut vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Frezarpura ... on 6 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10247-DB
J-APL 970-2021.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.970/2021
Shweta d/o Subhash Raut
Aged About:27 yrs. Occ.: Govt.
Servant At. Near Railway Station,
Gautam Nagar, Karanja Tq. Karanja
Dist. Washim.
... APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through it's Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Frezarpura,
Amravati (City) Tq. Dist. Amravati
2) Nawal Purushottam Rathi
Aged about: 30 Yrs. Occ.: Business
R/o. Near Vijaya Convent, Saturna,
Amravati (City), Amravati
Tq.Dist. Amravati
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri. Raju Kadu, Advocate for applicant
Shri. N.H. Joshi, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
Shri. Tushar Tathod, Advocate for non-applicant No.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.10.2025
J-APL 970-2021.odt 2/8
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for both the parties.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C'), praying to quash and set aside
the First Information Report bearing No.1137/2021 (for short
'FIR'), dated 01.06.2021 and the consequent charge-sheet No.
254/2024, dated 13.12.2024, registered by the Police Station
Frezarpura, Amravati (City), Amravati, for the offence punishable
under Sections 342, 363, 386, 323 and 506(B) in charge-sheet/
506(2) in First Information Report, read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), against the applicant.
3. The case of the applicant is that she is working as a Staff
Nurse in a Covid Hospital in Achalpur. The non-applicant No.2
lodged a report against the applicant for the offences punishable
under above Sections on 01.06.2021 for the incident which
occurred on 08.01.2021. As per the said FIR, the non-applicant
No.2 i.e. Nawal Purushottam Rathi, alleged that the applicant along
with one Ajay Wankhede abducted the non-applicant No.2 and
snatched keys of the motorcycle as also mobile phone from him.
They also threatened him with life and took him away to a Buddha
Vihar at Wadali. They further confined him on a terrace and beat
and abused him. Thereafter, under the threat of weapon they
obtained his signatures on certain blank stamp papers and forced
him to garland the applicant so that it can be said that they are
married. On these allegations the FIR mentioned above was lodged.
It is this FIR which is challenged in the present application of 482 of
the Cr.P.C.
4. We have heard Shri Raju Kadu and Shri Mohan Gawai,
learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri N.H. Joshi, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1/State and
Shri Tushar Tathod, learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.2.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that as can be seen
from the FIR in question that which is lodged on 01.06.2021 the
alleged incident happened between 08.01.2021 to 15.03.2021. It is
therefore his submission that there is a significant delay in lodging
of the FIR doubting the veracity thereof. It is his further submission
that prior to lodging of the FIR in question, the applicant on
03.04.2021 lodged a FIR bearing No.0202/2021 against the present
non-applicant No.2, for the offences punishable under Section 376
of the IPC and other related offences. It is, therefore, his submission
that the present FIR is nothing but a counter blast to the said and
no offence is made out.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
strongly opposes the contentions made by the applicant and states
that averments in the FIR are sufficient to at least make out a prima
facie case that the said offences are being committed by the
applicant. Learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2 also supports the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor and states that the averments
in the FIR constitute an offence. He submits that delay itself cannot
be a ground to quash FIR.
7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused
the material including the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution on
record.
8. As can be seen from the FIR in question, the offences
complained of is under Sections 342, which is a wrongful
confinement, Section 363 which is kidnapping and Section 386 of
the IPC, which speaks about extortion by putting the person by fear
of death.
9. In light of these provisions, if the averments in the FIR are
perused, admittedly, there is a significant delay in lodging the said
FIR, since the same is lodged on 01.06.2021 for an incidence which
happened from 08.01.2021 till 15.03.2021. The allegations in the
FIR further reveals that along with the applicant and one Ajay
Wankhede there were two unidentified persons who abused and
beat the applicant and snatched away her mobile. In this regard it is
worthwhile to mention that initially the FIR was lodged at Police
Station Rajapeth, Amravati, bearing FIR No. 0644/2021 and the
said was subsequently transferred to Police Station Frezarpura,
Amravati, bearing FIR No.1137/2021.The explanation for delay in
the affidavit in reply does seem to be convincing one. No prudent
person would wait for 2-3 months after he is abducted and forced
to shell out money as alleged. We have perused the statements on
record by the prosecution while investigating the matter. The
statements of the witnesses recorded by the prosecution do not
speak about any incriminating material.
10. It is also an admitted fact on record that the applicant herein
i.e. Shweta Raut has lodged an FIR No. 0202/2021 for the offences
punishable under Sections 376, 417, 317, 504 and 506 of the IPC
along with Sections 3(i)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989. A Composite and meaningful reading of both these FIR reveal
that the applicant and the non-applicant were in a live in
relationship with each other and the relationship subsequently has
gone sour. Both these FIR's are a result of this estranged
relationship.
11. Furthermore, the allegations in the FIR regarding kidnapping
and extortion do no find support in any of the statements of the
witnesses. As stated above, the lodging of the FIR seems to be an
act of vengeance and to seek revenge against the previous FIR
lodged by the applicant. The ingredients of the offence mentioned
supra are not made out even after meaningful reading of the FIR in
question. The situation would therefore squarely fall within the
parameters laid down in the celebrated judgment of State of
Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others,1992 Supp(1) SCC
335. We are guided by the parameters laid down in paragraph No.
102 of judgment reported in and more particularly Clause 7
thereof :
"102......
(1) .......
(2) .......
(3) .......
(4) .......
(5) .......
(6) .......
(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."
12. We therefore are of the view that this is a fit case to exercise
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as continuance of the
proceedings any further would amount to an abuse of the process of
Court. We therefore, proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
i) The application is allowed.
ii) The First Information Report bearing No.1137/2021, dated
01.06.2021 and the consequent charge-sheet No. 254/2024, dated
13.12.2024, registered by the Police Station Frezarpura, Amravati
(City), Amravati, for the offence punishable under Sections 342,
363, 386, 323 and 506(B) in charge-sheet/506(2) in First
Information Report, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
are hereby quashed and set aside.
13. The application is disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
