[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Lachuram Nevandram Jadhwani (Lund) vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps ... on 9 February, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:2165-DB



                                                                                 22 apl 23.21 odt..odt
                                                     1


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 23 OF 2021

                1.      Lachuram Nevandram Jadhwani                                        APPLICANT
                        (Lund)
                        Aged about 58 years,
                        Occupation : Doctor,
                        R/o Sindhu Nagar, Amravati,
                        Tq. and District Amravati

                                                 // V E R S U S //

                1.      The State of Maharashtra,
                        Through Police Station Officer,                              NON-APPLICANT
                        P.S. Frezarpura, Amravati
                        Tah. & District Amravati
                2.      Smt. Pranjali Padmakar Waghmare,                      Amendment carried out as
                        Aged 26 years,                                      per Courts order 04.10.2021
                        Occupation:- Household,
                        R/o. C/o Yusuf Khan,
                        Mahendra Colony, Murtikar
                        Galli, Amravati Dist. Amravati
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Mr. Pankaj Navlani, Advocate for the applicant.
                Mrs. Mrunal Barbade, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
                Mrs. Seema Dhote, Advocate (Appointed) for non-applicant No.2.
                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

                        JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON:-02.02.2026
                        JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON:-09.02.2026.

                  JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

22 apl 23.21 odt..odt

2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consent

of learned counsel for the parties.

3. This application is preferred by the applicant under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the

First Information Report in connection with crime No.1104/2020

registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station Frezarpura

District Amravati under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short, 'I.P.C.') and consequent proceeding arising out of

the same bearing RCC No.2098/2025 pending in the Court of

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati.

4. The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged

by non-applicant No.2 alleging that on 07.12.2020 she had been

to the clinic of present applicant as her blood pressure was raised.

The applicant inquired with her the reason for raising of blood

pressure, at that time she informed him that she is in need of

financial assistance, on which the present applicant disclosed to

her that his friend gives financial assistance on interest and he will

took her to him. On the pretext of assisting her to obtain the

financial assistance the applicant in his car going towards Chandur

Railway Road and in the car itself he has subjected her for forceful 22 apl 23.21 odt..odt

sexual assault. On the basis of said report police have registered

crime against the present applicant. During investigation

Investigating Officer has visited alleged spot of incident and

drawn the spot panchanama. Victim was referred for medical

examination. The relevant samples were forwarded to the

chemical analysis and after completion of the investigation charge-

sheet was submitted against the present applicant.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who

submitted that the applicant is a Doctor by profession and

practices from last 20 years by running clinic in the name of

"Hari Om" at Tajnagar No.1, Amravati. He had purchased a plot at

Yasmin Nagar, Amravati and constructed two room and kitchen

and started his clinic at Yasmin Nagar. Since March 2020 due to

Pandamic situation he stopped attending his clinic at Yasmin

Nagar and was only attending the clinic at Taj Nagar, Amravati.

The applicant has also suffered from Covid and was admitted in

the hospital from 16.05.2020 to 29.05.2020. On 2.07.2020 when

he had been to his clinic he came to know that the lock of his

house was broken by somebody and encroached upon his house.

He immediately lodged a report to the police and crime was 22 apl 23.21 odt..odt

registered vide crime No.229/2020 on 08.07.2020 under Sections

420, 468, 471, 454, 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the IPC

against non-applicant No.2, Sayyad Ismile Sayyad Baba, Shoeb

Ahmed Abdul Jalil. Thereafter the non-applicant No.2 was

insisting him to withdraw the complaint by threatening otherwise

she would implicate him in false case. He submitted that as far as

his connection with non-applicant No.2 is concerned, she was

never his patient only because he lodged complaint against her he

is implicated maliciously in the said crime. It is further submitted

by learned counsel for the applicant that the story narrated by the

victim itself is improper, unacceptable. The circumstances under

which the FIR came to be lodged if taken into consideration no

offence is made out against present applicant. He further invited

my attention towards the statement of the non-applicant No.2

dated 10.11.2020 and submitted that if that statement is taken

into consideration even if accepting the allegation as it is its a

consensual act of the non-applicant No.2 on that count also no

offence is made out. He submitted that allegation of administering

stupefying substance is not substantiated by any material or any

evidence. For all above these grounds by applying the para 22 apl 23.21 odt..odt

meters for quashing of the FIR the application deserves to be

allowed.

6. Per contra learned APP and non-applicant No.2

strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that the

allegation in the FIR itself is sufficient to constitute the offence. In

another crime non-applicant No.2 was wrongly implicated by the

present applicant. There is no reason for the non-applicant No.2

to implicate the present applicant in the alleged offence. They

submitted that at this stage there is prima-facie material to

connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. In view of

that application deserves to be rejected.

7. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire

investigation papers it reveals that as per the allegation of the

non-applicant No.2 she had been to the clinic of the present

applicant for her physical examination on 07.12.2020. On that day

she was subjected for the forceful sexual assault by the applicant

by taking her on the pretext of providing her financial assistance.

If this allegation is taken into consideration in the light of the fact

that the present applicant has lodged report against her on

08.07.2020 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 454, 457, 380 read 22 apl 23.21 odt..odt

with 34 of the IPC vide crime No.229/2020 in whichnon applicant

No.2 was arrested. The allegation in the said complaint lodged by

the present applicant shows that he owned a house in Yasmin

Nagar, Amravati and he has constructed two rooms house at the

said plot. In the year 2017 he left said place and started residing

at Mulli Apartment SBI Colony. Thereafter house at Yasmin Nager

was locked. The present non-applicant No.2 illegally taken into

possession by the non-applicant No.2 and sold the same by

impersonation On the basis of the said report police have

registered crime against non-applicant No.2 and after four months

the above said FIR came to be lodged. The contention of the

learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was on various

occasions threatened by the non-applicant No.2 that if he did not

withdraw complaint against her she would implicate him in false

complaint cannot be ruled out. Admittedly non-applicant No.2

was patient of present applicant is not substantiated by any

material. There are no statements of the witnesses to state that

the non-applicant No.2 had been to the clinic of present applicant

on the day of incident. The present applicant has also filed a civil

suit against non-applicant No.2 and other co-accused for

declaration, injunction and possession in the Court of Civil Judge, 22 apl 23.21 odt..odt

Senior Division, Amravati. Thus, the contention of the applicant

that he is implicated in a false case cannot be ruled out. The

general diary entry which was recorded on 06.08.2024 also

disclosed that present applicant has sold the property owned by

the present non applicant No.2 in the name Joya Jabir Sheikh. In

fact, the names of present non-applicant No.2 and Joya Jabir

Sheikh reveal to be one and the same person. During

investigation the statement of the non-applicant No.2 is also

recorded. From the perusal of the statement it reveals that she has

stated that applicant has promised her that he will provide all the

facilities to her and thereafter there was physical relationship

between them and relationship was continued between them from

2014 to 2020. If this aspect is taken into consideration then there

is substance in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant

that it is a consensual act.

8. On perusal of the entire investigation papers it reveals

that the story narrated by non-applicant No.2 is not substantiated

by any material as far as the fact that she had been to the clinic of

present applicant and she was subjected for forcible sexual assault

by taking her at some place. This allegation is to be looked into in

the light of her statement on 10.11.2020 if that is to be accepted 22 apl 23.21 odt..odt

then the relationship between both of them was consensual in

nature.

9. The aspect of consent was considered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs The State

Of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 wherein after

referring the catena of decisions the Hon'ble Apex Court held that

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.

10. In the present case admittedly there is no allegation

as to the promise of marriage but allegation is that applicant has

promised her to hand over the immovable property house by 22 apl 23.21 odt..odt

transferring it in her name and on that count subjected her for the

forceful sexual assault.

11. The allegation in the FIR do not on its face value

indicate that there was a forceful sexual assault on her as the

story narrated by the victim itself appears to be improper and

unacceptable. In the light of her subsequent statement dated

10.11.2020 this allegation further to be appreciated in the light of

the fact that previously present applicant has lodged FIR against

her vide crime No.229/2020 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 454,

457, 380 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The applicant has

further preferred civil suit against her for declaration and

injunction and possession. Thus, the contention of applicant that

he is falsely implicated as he has taken action against her who has

sold his house to other co-accused by misrepresenting them. Even

considering the FIR at its face value, the allegations are not

substantiated. By applying the parameters laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs.

Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court

Cases 335, where it is stated as under:-

22 apl 23.21 odt..odt

" (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) 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.

22 apl 23.21 odt..odt

12. The allegations levelled against present applicant are

not sufficient to constitute prima-facie case and therefore, the

application deserves to be allowed.

13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-