Bombay High Court
Dhammapal S/O. Arun Ukey vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ps M.I.D.C. Dist. ... on 26 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9823-DB
J-apl528.23final.odt 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.528 OF 2023
Dhammapal s/o Arun Ukey,
Aged about 25 years,
Occupation : Nil,
R/o. Ward No.1, Silezari Sangadi,
Arjuni-Mogaon,
District -Gondia 441 802. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station M.I.D.C.,
District - Nagpur.
2. XYZ,
In Crime No.0129/2023,
Through P.S.O.- MIDC,
Nagpur. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Virat S. Mishra, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. M.J. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.
Mr. Raj Sekhsaria h/f. Mr. D.M. Verma, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The present application is filed challenging quashing of
First Information Report in Crime No.0129/2023, registered by
non-applicant No.1 against the applicant for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 313, 417, 323 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as also the
consequent charge-sheet filed in pursuance to the said offence,
bearing No.32/2023.
3. The non-applicant No.2, who is the original
complainant lodged a First Information Report (F.I.R.) with the
non-applicant No.1 stating therein that the applicant used to live in
front of her house since childhood and is three years older than her.
It is further stated that with passage of time their friendship turned
into love and they had long standing relationship. That, in the year
2015 when she was studying in 11th Standard the applicant came at
the College in ehivh she was studying on a two wheeler and asked
her to accompany him. He took her to Konda-Kosra, Taluka Paoni,
District Bhandara in a room and stated that he is in love with her
and established physical relations with her without her consent. He
also threatened her not to tell this fact to anybody. Thereafter,
applicant stated to the non-applicant No.2 that he would marry her
when she would be completing 18 years of age and insisted that
she should reside at the rented room, otherwise the relationship
would be known to public.
4. It is further stated that under the said threat the
complainant started staying with the applicant and applicant was
establishing physical relationship with her against her will.
Thereafter, when applicant in the year 2017 beat the complainant,
she was constrained to narrate the facts to her mother. A meeting
was held in Tanta Mukti Samiti of the village where it was decided
that as soon as the complainant turns 18 years and applicant turns
21 years of age both of them would get married. It is further stated
in the F.I.R. that even after this applicant started avoiding non-
applicant No.2 and delayed the date of marriage. Furthermore, in
the year 2021 when marriage of complainant was fixed with one
Akshay Jadhav, the applicant met said Akshay Jadhav and told him
about his relationship with non-applicant No.2 as a result of which
the said marriage was broken.
5. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that in spite of this, the
applicant took non-applicant No.2 to Jaitala area in Nagpur and
had sexual intercourse with complainant as against her will, as a
result of which, she got pregnant. So, the applicant on 3.5.2022
took the complainant to Dr. Priya Akre's Clinic, situated at Trimurti
Nagar, Nagpur and on 4.5.2022 applicant made her consume some
medicinal tablet, due which, she had abortion. This fact was
realized by the non-applicant No.2 for the first time in November
2022. In spite of this the non-applicant No.2 wanted to marry the
applicant but the applicant switched off his mobile phone and
avoided her. On the basis of these allegations an F.I.R. was lodged
by the non-applicant No.2 with non-applicant No.1 for the offences
mentioned supra. It is this F.I.R. which is questioned in the present
application on grounds mentioned therein.
6. We have heard Mr. Virat S. Mishra, learned counsel for
the applicant, Mr. M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for non-applicant No.1 and Mr. Raj Sekhsari holding for Mr. D.M.
Mishra, learned counsel for non-applicant No.2.
7. Mr. Virat Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant states
that non-applicant No.2 i.e. original complainant/ first informant
before the Police, has filed an affidavit on 3.7.2023 stating that she
is ready to withdraw the present proceedings out of her free will
and without any coercion. Thus, the counsel for applicant submits
that they have amicably settled the dispute. The applicant as well
as non-applicant No.2 were present before this Court on 12.9.2025
and the contents of the statements were verified by us from them
and we have closed the matter for judgment.
8. In the light of these facts the counsel for applicant
submits that the parties to the matter i.e. applicant and non-
applicant No.2 since have settled the matter, this would be a fit
case to quash the F.I.R. and charge-sheet in question. He relied
upon the judgment of this Court at the Principal Seat in Writ
Petition No.272/2022, Ganesh Shankar Pilane Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and another and states that the co-ordinate Bench of
this Hon'ble Court in similar circumstances quashed the F.I.R.
9. We have perused the said Judgment. The Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matter of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi
Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has stated that
offences which are private in nature and do not have a serious
impact on the society on the ground that there is settlement/
compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is
required to consider the antecedent of the accused, the conduct of
the accused etc. Furthermore, in the same judgment in para 16(v)
the Hon'ble Apex Court has recorded as under :
"16(v). while exercising the power under
Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings in respect of non-
compoundable offences, which are private in
nature and do not have a serious impart on
society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/ compromise between the victim
and the offender, the High Court is required
to consider the antecedents of the accused;
the conduct of the accused, namely, whether
the accused was absconding and why he was
absconding, how he had managed with the
complainant to enter into a compromise etc."
10. It, therefore, follows that even as per the Apex Court
quashing of F.I.R. on the basis of settlement revolves ultimately on
the facts and circumstances of the case and no straight jacket
formula can be laid down. This judgment is, therefore, of no
assistance to the applicant.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant further relied on
judgment in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608. This was
a case where offences was under Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Thus, in the said case no offence under the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was clamped upon the accused
therein. This case, therefore, also is not of any help to the
applicant.
12. In the present case, as can be seen from the F.I.R. in
question the date of birth of the non-applicant No.2 is 6.3.2000.
Therefore, when the applicant (as per F.I.R.) established physical
relationship with her without her consent in the year 2015, the
non-applicant No.2 was only 15 years old i.e. minor. It is,
therefore, not material whether she consented to it or not.
Furthermore, even in the year 2017 when the incident happened,
she still continued to be minor and, therefore, her consent was
immaterial. These facts are of seminal importance while
adjudicating the matter in hand as the applicant has also been
charged under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
13. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 was enacted as a self contained comprehensive legislation
inter-alia to provide for protection of children from offences of
sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography with due
regard for safeguarding the interest and well being of the child at
every stage of the judicial process, incorporating child friendly
procedure for reporting, recording of evidence, investigation and
trial of offences and provision for establishment of Special Courts
for speedy trial of such offences. Section 2(d) of the said Act
defines, "child" means any person below the age of eighteen years'.
Section 3 defines, 'Penetrative sexual assault', while Section 4
provides for 'Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.' Section 5
defines, 'Aggravated penetrative sexual assault' and Section 6
provides for 'Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault'.
Offence under Section 376(2(n) which provides for, 'repeated rape
or sexual assault on the same woman , Section 376(3) provides for,
'rape of woman under 16 years of age.'
14. The applicant being minor whether the act was done
with her consent or without her consent is immaterial in the
present situation. Section 13 of the Contract Act defines, 'consent'
and states that two or more persons are said to consent when they
agree upon the same thing in the same sense'. Section 14 of the
said Act defines, 'free consent and states that it is a free consent
when it is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud,
misrepresentation or mistake.' Consent of a minor is no consent at
all in law. Thus, it can be seen that subsequent conduct of the
applicant of withdrawing the F.I.R. and filing an affidavit
accordingly before this Court is of no avail since when the offence
was committed she was a minor and was a 'child' as defined under
Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012. Thus what is important to see in this matter is even
according to the contents of the F.I.R. when the alleged acts of the
applicant which are punishable under Sections 376, 313 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were committed by the
applicant, the non-applicant No.2 was minor. Furthermore, the
conduct of the applicant in making the non-applicant No.2 abort
her fetus is also very serious act which cannot be lightly brushed
aside.
15. It can, however, be seen that no offence under Sections
417 (cheating), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), as also under
Section 506 (criminal intimidation) is made out from the contents
of the F.I.R. and the statements recorded by the prosecution in the
charge-sheet.
16. . It would be, therefore, not a fit case to exercise
inherent powers provided under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code since it would amount to doing violence to the
stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and the object with which it was enacted We,
therefore, partly allow the present application and quash the F.I.R.
only with relation to offence under Sections 417, 323 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code. We, however, reject the application as far as
offence under Section 376(2)(n), 376(3), 313 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are concerned. Hence, we proceed to
pass following order :
ORDER
(i) Application is partly allowed.
(ii) First Information Report bearing Crime
No.0129/2023, registered by non-applicant No.1 and the
charge-sheet bearing No.32/2023 for offences mentioned in the
said F.I.R. are quashed only to the extent of offences punishable
under Sections 417, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
However, the prosecution would continue as far as offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 313 of the Indian
Penal Code and as also under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
(iii) The application is disposed of accordingly.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/09/2025 15:26:44
