Bombay High Court
Shashank Shekhar Jha vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 September, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:40609
6 REVN 605-24.doc
Ashish
Digitally signed
ASHISH by ASHISH
MHASKE
SAHEBRAO
SAHEBRAO MHASKE
Date: 2025.09.25
18:42:02 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 605 OF 2024
Shashank Shekhar Jhan ... Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. Atal Bihari Dubey, for the applicant.
Mrs. Kranti Hiwrale, APP for respondent - State.
Mr. Rajdeep Lahiri a/w Ms. Sana Khan for respondent
no.2.
Mr. Sanjay Gahag, PSI, Pairavi Adhikari, Malwani
Police Station.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 25, 2025
P.C.:
1. By this revision application, the applicant has challenged the
order dated 23 October 2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge below Exhibit-3 in Sessions Case No.503 of 2023.
By the said order, the learned Judge rejected the application filed
by the applicant seeking discharge for offences punishable under
Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution is that respondent no.2, the
complainant, is a permanent resident of West Bengal and at the
relevant time was residing at Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai.
She came in contact with the applicant through Facebook. Both of
them started communicating regularly through social media and
telephone. Their friendship developed into intimacy. The applicant
1
::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 22:29:23 :::
6 REVN 605-24.doc
was working in a post-production company, whereas respondent
no.2 desired to build her career in that field. The applicant assured
her that he would help in shaping her career. Relying upon this
assurance, she decided to come to Mumbai in April 2016.
3. On her arrival at Dadar railway station, the applicant
received her. He then arranged accommodation in a one BHK flat
near Malvani bus depot, Malad (West). The applicant, his sister
Sugandha Jha, and respondent no.2 started residing together in
the said flat. It is the allegation that the applicant expressed his
intention to marry her after she settled in her career. Believing this
assurance, respondent no.2 continued her stay. During this period,
the applicant established physical relations with her without her
free consent. When she objected, he reiterated his promise of
marriage. Respondent no.2 stayed in the said flat for about 5 to 6
months, and during that time, the applicant had repeated physical
relations with her.
4. Subsequently, disputes arose between respondent no.2 and
the applicant's sister, which led to quarrels. On one such occasion,
the applicant allegedly assaulted respondent no.2. She then went
back to her native place for about 15 days. Upon her return, she
found that the applicant and his sisters had shifted to Saptarshi
Tower, Ekta Nagar, Malad (West). Respondent no.2 stayed with
them in that flat for another 5 to 6 months, and again, the
applicant continued physical relations with her.
5. In 2017, while respondent no.2 was working as an intern
with Color Bar Studio, the applicant allegedly used to pick quarrels
2
::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 22:29:23 :::
6 REVN 605-24.doc
over trivial issues and assaulted her, including at her workplace.
Due to such conduct, she left the Malad flat and started staying as
a paying guest at Versova after taking up employment at Aaram
Nagar. After two months, the applicant apologized, promised
marriage again, and requested her to resume cohabitation. On this
assurance, respondent no.2 returned and started residing with him
at Saptarshi Tower. At that time, the applicant's sisters were also
residing in the same building.
6. According to respondent no.2, in October 2017, she went to
West Bengal to celebrate Durga Puja, where she was undergoing
treatment for jaundice. The applicant also visited her native place
and discussed marriage with her family members. Despite the ill
health of her father, the applicant compelled him and her brother
to travel to his native place for further discussions. However,
subsequent disputes led respondent no.2 to refuse to continue
residing with the applicant in Mumbai.
7. In early 2018, respondent no.2 wished to stay as a paying
guest. The applicant allegedly restrained her and insisted she
should stay with him, reiterating his promise of marriage. At that
place too, he established physical relations. Later, after securing
employment with CH4 Studio at Santacruz, respondent no.2 along
with the applicant shifted to a rented flat at Versova. Thereafter,
they changed residence to Madh Jetty, where physical relations
continued. Respondent no.2 became pregnant. The applicant
assured her of marriage and even spoke to her family. However,
disputes arose again, and it is alleged that he assaulted her and
threatened her parents. After three months, she suffered a
3
::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 22:29:23 :::
6 REVN 605-24.doc
miscarriage. In February 2019, she returned to her native place in
West Bengal.
8. In June 2019, the applicant visited Kolkata, persuaded her,
and stayed with her in hotels. They later visited Mumbai together.
On realizing his deceitful conduct, respondent no.2 ceased
communication with him. However, the applicant allegedly
continued to harass her by calling her father and brother and
threatening her.
9. On 3 October 2020, the applicant visited her native place
and sought to take her back to Mumbai. Her family insisted that he
must first confirm marriage. He agreed and both signed
registration forms. On 5 October 2020, she returned to Mumbai
and stayed with him at Versova. Soon after, the applicant started
quarrelling and even his relatives allegedly threatened her, leading
to a non-cognizable complaint being lodged. The applicant later
avoided her advocate's calls regarding registration of marriage and
failed to fix a date.
10. Finally, on 7 December 2020, when respondent no.2 again
confronted him on the issue of marriage, the applicant allegedly
assaulted her and refused to marry. She then realized that the
promise of marriage made since 2016 was false and only a pretext
for physical relations. Consequently, the FIR was lodged.
11. The learned Advocate for the applicant, by referring to the
FIR and other material, submitted that the relationship was
consensual. According to him, the complainant herself admitted
that the relationship began in 2016 and continued till December
4
::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 22:29:23 :::
6 REVN 605-24.doc
2020. He argued that there is no material to indicate that at the
inception, the applicant had no intention to marry. Therefore, the
essential ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) IPC are not satisfied.
12. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on
judgments of the Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v.
State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 651 and Sonu v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2021) 18 SCC 517. In these decisions, the Court laid
down the principles for exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. while considering allegations under Section 376(2)(n). He
therefore argued that the Sessions Court ought to have discharged
the applicant under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
13. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for respondent no.2
contended that the applicant never intended to marry from the
beginning. He exploited the complainant by luring her into a false
belief of marriage. Even during the Covid period, when she
insisted on registration of marriage, the applicant gave false
excuses. The material on record, including witness statements,
prima facie establishes offences under Sections 376, 323, 504 and
506 IPC. He therefore supported the order of the Sessions Court
rejecting the discharge application.
14. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and
examined the material placed on record. The facts reveal that the
relationship between the applicant and respondent no.2
commenced in April 2016 and continued till December 2020. The
complainant herself admits that she was in constant
companionship with the applicant for nearly four years. During
5
::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 22:29:23 :::
6 REVN 605-24.doc
this long span, both resided together at several places in Mumbai,
travelled together, and the complainant rejoined the applicant
even after temporary separations on his assurance. These
circumstances, taken cumulatively, show that the relationship was
not of a short-lived nature but a prolonged association.
15. The essence of Section 376(2)(n) IPC is that sexual
intercourse must have been procured by a false promise of
marriage where, at the inception itself, the accused never intended
to marry and only used such promise as a tool to exploit the
prosecutrix. If, however, the promise was made in good faith but
due to later circumstances marriage did not fructify, such case
would not attract the rigour of Section 376 IPC.
16. The judgments of the Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar (supra) and Sonu v(supra) make the law clear. It has been
held that there is a vital distinction between a false promise of
marriage made from inception and a breach of promise which
occurs later due to circumstances beyond control. For an offence
under Section 376 to be made out, the prosecution must prima
facie establish that the promise was false from the very beginning.
17. Applying these principles to the present case, it is clear that
there is no material to suggest that the applicant never intended to
marry respondent no.2 from the very start. On the contrary, the
conduct of both indicates that the relationship continued with
mutual consent over a considerable period. Respondent no.2
repeatedly returned to the applicant despite earlier quarrels, which
suggests that her decision to continue cohabitation was voluntary.
6
::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 22:29:23 :::
6 REVN 605-24.doc
The allegations regarding marriage discussions with families also
show that marriage was contemplated seriously, though it did not
ultimately materialise.
18. Thus, the essential ingredient of a false promise of marriage
from inception is not fulfilled in this case. What emerges is a failed
relationship, not a case of sexual exploitation under Section 376
IPC.
19. In these circumstances, continuation of prosecution would
amount to abuse of the process of law. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge did not correctly apply the settled legal principles
while rejecting the discharge application. The impugned order
therefore cannot be sustained.
20. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(a) Revision application is allowed.
(b) The order dated 23 October 2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.503 of 2023
below Exhibit-3 is quashed and set aside.
(c) The applicant stands discharged from offence punishable
under Sections 376, of the IPC. However trial for rest of
offence shall continue in accordance with law.
(d) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
21. The revision application is disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
