[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ganesh Ramdas Akolkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 4 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:4741
CriRevn-244-2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2024
Ganesh s/o Ramdas Akolkar
Age : 42 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Flat No. C-1, Gangotri Residency,
Tapowan Road, Ahmednagar,
Taluka and District Ahmednagar.
At present R/o. S.R.P.Ground No.7,
565 Quarter, Room No. 85/6, Daund,
District Pune. ... Applicant
[Orig. Accused No.1]
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Through Investigation Officer,
Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar,
District Ahmednagar.
.....
Mr. N. B. Narwade, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Respondent-State.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 02.02.2026
Pronounced on : 04.02.2026
ORDER :
1. Revision petitioner assails order dated 13.04.2023 passed on
Application Exhibit 5 in Special Case No. 294 of 2017 seeking
discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. from offence punishable under
section 376, 417, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
CriRevn-244-2024
2. Learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that, there
is false implication. Prosecutrix was major by age. That, initially there
was friendship which further developed into love relation and it is
reported by prosecutrix herself to that extent. Thus, according to him,
there was long standing love relation. That, subsequently when
relations between them became strained after some incidence dated
09.06.2017, for the first time allegations are raised in the FIR that
under the pretext of false promise of marriage, accused maintained
physical relation with her and he did not keep his promise. It is
further pointed out that, informant prosecutrix had complete
knowledge of the acts and deeds she had indulged into. Relations
were purely consensual. Allegations of physical intimacy against wish
were apparently false and out of annoyance. He pointed out that,
even there was no complaint till prosecutrix allegedly conceived and
even after there was termination of pregnancy. Therefore, it is his
submission that, whatever relations developed between informant
and revision petitioner were consensual and there was no fraud or
deception played on her. Lastly he submitted that, even otherwise
informant prosecutrix allegedly committed suicide and now she being
no more, even very prosecution against revision petitioner fails. For
all above reasons, by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
CriRevn-244-2024
Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of
Maharashtra and Another, reported in AIR 2019 SC 4010; AIR OnLine
2019 SC 904, he prays to discharge the accused.
3. Learned APP opposed on the ground that there are serious
accusations of maintaining sexual relations under the pretext of
promise of marriage which were false since inception. He pointed out
that, informant has categorically stated that, when she asked him
about his marital status, he allegedly told her that he was unmarried,
however he later on turned out to be father of two children. Thus,
according to learned APP, fraud and deception has been played in
gaining trust of the victim for sexually exploiting her. As regards to
death of prosecutrix is concerned, he submits that there is no dispute,
but still according to him, matter would not get abated and
prosecution would still survive.
4. Here, revision petitioner is arraigned as accused in crime no.
225 of 2017 registered with Tofkhand Police Station, Ahmednagar for
commission of offence under Sections 376, 313, 504, 506 of IPC and
under the provisions of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2089 (for short, "SCST Act").
His application for discharge has been partly allowed by learned
CriRevn-244-2024
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar by discharging him from
charges under the provision of the SCST Act. However, as regards to
remaining offences of 376, 417, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC are
concerned, prayers for discharge are turned down and hence instant
revision.
5. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be apt to
give a brief account of the settled legal precedents to be borne in
mind while entertaining application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Few
amongst them which could be named are State of Bihar v. Ramesh
Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 ; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal &
Another (1979) 3 SCC 4 ; R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay & Another
(1986) 2 SCC 716; Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation
(2010) 9 SCC 368 ; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra & Another
(2012) 9 SCC 460 and recent judgment in the case of Asim Shariff v.
National Investigating Agency (2019) 7 SCC 148, Ram Prakash
Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651.
The ratio that is culled out is that, while dealing with an
application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., strong suspicion against the
accused cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of
the trial. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which
CriRevn-244-2024
leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to
say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a
rule of universal application. Where the material placed before the
Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge
and proceeding with the trial. By and large however, if two views are
equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced
before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the
accused.
6. Keeping in mind the above settled legal position, perused the
chargesheet comprising of FIR dated 05.07.2017 registered at
Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar. On going through the FIR, it is
revealed that prosecutrix, who gave her age as 21 years on
04.07.2017, having lost her parents, was all alone. According to her,
she had friends in police headquarter and was therefore regularly
visiting it. She claims that, there, she got acquainted with present
revision petitioner and she further stated that, their acquaintance
CriRevn-244-2024
grew into friendship and further blossomed into love affair. She
reported that, realizing her to be all alone, he suggested her to stay at
his friend's place since 24.12.2016. According to her, on 26.12.2016
revision petitioner came to her house, tried to become intimate and
then she claims to have asked him about his marital status, upon
which he allegedly told her that he was unmarried, and then she
claims that against her wish he maintained physical relation with her.
She further stated that, thereafter time to time in her house there
were physical relations. Again, at his place in February 2017 she
alleged that against her wish, he maintained physical relation with
her and then she developed signs of pregnancy and later her
pregnancy was confirmed to be three months old. Thereafter she
claims to have asked revision petitioner about marriage but he
allegedly disclosed her that he is already married and has two
children. Then she claims to have realized that, in spite of being
married, he had maintained relations with her. She further stated
that, still she asked him to marry her assuring that she would not
become an obstacle in his married life, upon which he allegedly
agreed but first insisted her to undergo abortion and accordingly, she
underwent the same in April 2017. Finally, according to her, on
28.04.2017 he started avoiding her. Then in June 2017 he took her to
his house and she claims to be pressurized and beaten and when she
CriRevn-244-2024
was about to lodge complaint, there was assurance of amicable
settlement, and on 07.06.2017 she was offered financial support to
which she claims to have agreed. Finally on 09.06.2017 she claims
that a notarized document was prepared and without making its
contents known to her, her signature and thumb was obtained. Hence
the above FIR.
7. From above FIR it is clear that prosecutrix, who was at the time
of FIR giving her age as 21 years, and having claimed to have got
acquainted and had love relations with revision petitioner in 2016, at
that time she seems to be major by age. She has specifically reported
that, during his initial advances and intimacy, she asked him about
his marital status, and she reported that he disclosed her that he was
single. Subsequently, after conception and pregnancy she allegedly
claimed to have learnt from revision petitioner that he was already
married. All this seems to have happened in April 2017 and she
claimed to have been induced to undergo medical termination of
pregnancy and then there was said to be avoidance. Thus, there is
material suggesting suppression of marital status while maintaining
physical intimacy. There are allegations of false promise of marriage.
Veracity of all such material can be gone into only in a trial.
CriRevn-244-2024
8. Though indisputably and unfortunately prosecutrix had ended
up her life, still matter would not get abated as put forth by learned
counsel for the revision petitioner. In the considered opinion of this
Court, prosecution can still continue on the available evidence which
comprises of testimonies of medical experts, scientific and medical
evidence and other witnesses. There are allegations of forceful
termination of pregnancy. All such accusations cannot be left
unattended merely because prosecutrix committed suicide. Here, this
Court is only called upon to exercise revisionary powers for discharge
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. There is indeed prima facie material to
proceed to frame charge and trial if prosecution intends to do so.
Taking into account the nature of accusations and availability of
prima facie material, this Court does not find it a fit case to discharge
the accused as prayed.
9. In the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) which is relied,
there was only FIR for commission of offence under Sections 376,
417, 504, 506(2) of IPC and provisions of the SCST Act. Here, there is
charge sheet upon investigation. Therefore, said citation does not
come to the rescue of revision petitioner. No case being made out for
discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the following order is passed :
CriRevn-244-2024
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
