[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ganesh Premrao Vhadgire vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2447-DB
1 27 APL 538.20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.538 OF 2020
Ganesh Premrao Vhadgire,
Aged about 33 years,
Occupation-Service,
R/o. Ward No.4, Fulsawangi,
Tq. Mahagaon, District-Yavatmal. .. Applicant
..Versus..
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. P.S. Dattapur,
Tq. Dhamangaon Rly,
District-Amravati.
2. Archana Narayan Kambale,
Aged 31 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Nimbhora Bodkha, Dattapur,
Tq. Dhamangaon Rly,
District-Amravati. .. Non-Applicants
................
Shri Sumit B. Gandhe, Advocate for Applicant,
Ms. Soniya Thakur, APP for Non-Applicant No.1/State.
None appears for Non-Applicant no.2.
...............
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 10.02.2026.
JUDGMENT
1. The applicant herein challenged the registration of
Special Case No.29/2026 arising out of Crime
2 27 APL 538.20
No.0214/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 376
(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(w), 3(1)
(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. It the case of the applicant that he was in love affair
with the non-applicant no.2 and out of that love affair,
subsequently their physical relations were established.
But due to certain reasons, the marriage was not performed
between them and, therefore, the complaint came to be
lodged by the non-applicant no.2 in the matter. As such,
according to him, it is a case of consensual relationship
between them and, therefore, no offence is made out
against him in the matter and hence seeks indulgence of this
court in the matter.
3. The learned APP has strongly opposed the present
application. According to APP, there are specific allegations
against the present applicant and the bare perusal of the
same prima facie demonstrates that under the pretext of
false promise of marriage, the applicant has established the
3 27 APL 538.20
relations with her. Learned APP also pointed out that the
applicant was very much aware about her caste and,
therefore, considering the manner in which he has
established the relations with the present non-applicant
no.2, the offence is made out against him and, therefore,
the present application deserves to be rejected.
4. In the light of the submissions of both the parties,
I have perused the complaint and also considered the
prosecution story in short. As per the prosecution case, the
non-applicant no.2, while she was prosecuting her studies of
post graduation at New Arts College, Wardha, through
social media she came in the contact with the present
applicant. The present applicant was the employee of MSEB
department. Initially, there were chatting between them on
the social media. Lateron, their friendship were converted
into the love relationship. In the year 2017, the applicant
expressed his love to the non-applicant no.2. The same was
accepted by the non-applicant no.2 as applicant was ready
to perform the marriage with her. As such, this relations
were continued for some period and, thereafter, their
4 27 APL 538.20
physical relationship were established. The said relationship
were continued for months together between them.
5. In the year 2018, the marriage of the sister of
applicant was performed. Thereafter, the non-applicant no.2
insisted for the marriage. The applicant denied for marriage
on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and,
therefore, it will not be possible to perform the marriage.
It is also alleged that after the breaking down of the
relations, the non-applicant no.2 has decided to perform
marriage with another person and as she was receiving the
various proposals. However, applicant interfered in the said
proposal of marriage of applicant, therefore, she could not
perform her marriage with any other person and hence on
this count complaint came to be lodged against the present
applicant in the matter.
6. After registration of the complaint, the investigation
has been conducted and the statements of the family
members and friends were recorded by the investigation
officer. On the basis of these statements, the chargesheet
5 27 APL 538.20
was filed stating that the offence is made out against the
present applicant in the matter. As such, the criminal
proceeding is pending against him before the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class.
7. In the background of above said allegations, the
applicant has firstly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Prashant .vs. State of NCT of
Delhi, reported in 2024 INSC 879. In this judgment,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that breaking of the love
relationship between the parties cannot be a reason to
initiate the criminal proceeding against the male person.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed in this
regard in para 19 and 20 as under :
19. In our view, taking the allegations in the
FIR and the charge sheet as they stand, the
crucial ingredients of the offence under Section
376 (2)(n) IPC are absent. A review of the FIR
and the complainant's statement under Section
164 CrPC discloses no indication that any
promise of marriage was extended at the outset
of their relationship in 2017. Therefore, even if
the prosecution's case is accepted at its face
value, it cannot be concluded that the
complainant engaged in a sexual relationship
with the appellant solely on account of any
assurance of marriage from the appellant. The
6 27 APL 538.20
relationship between the parties was cordial
and also consensual in nature. A mere breakup
of a relationship between a consenting couple
cannot result in initiation of criminal
proceedings. What was a consensual
relationship between the parties at the initial
stages cannot be given a colour of criminality
when the said relationship does not fructify
into a marital relationship. Further, both
parties are now married to someone else and
have moved on in their respective lives. Thus,
in our view, the continuation of the prosecution
in the present case would amount to a gross
abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no
purpose would be served by continuing the
prosecution.
20. The ingredients of criminal intimidation are
threat to another person, inter alia, with any
injury to his person, reputation with intent to
cause alarm to that person or to cause that
person to any act which he is not legally bound
to do. In the instant case, as already noted, the
relationship between the appellant and the
complainant was consensual in nature. In fact,
they wanted to fructify the relationship into
marriage. It is in that context that they
indulged in sexual activity. Therefore, there
cannot be a case of criminal intimidation
involved as against the complainant. We do not
find that there was any threat caused to the
complainant by the appellant when all along
there was cordiality between them and it was
only when the appellant got married in the
year 2019 that the complainant filed a
complaint. In the circumstances, we do not
think that the offence under Section 503 read
with Section 506 of the IPC has been made out
in the instant case."
7 27 APL 538.20
8. The applicant also relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar .vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, reported in
MANU/SC/1142/2019, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has considered as to how the conclusion can be drawn that
it is a case of false promise to marriage or breach of promise
of marriage or consensual relationship. In this regard, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 16 and 18 observed as
under :
16. Where the promise to marry is false and the
intention of the maker at the time of making the
promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive
the woman to convince her to engage in sexual
relations, there is a "misconception of fact that
vitiates the woman's "consent". On the other hand,
a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false
promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of
the promise should have had no intention of
upholding his word at the time of giving it. The
"consent of a woman Under Section 375 is vitiated
on the ground of a "misconception of fact" where
such misconception was the basis for her choosing
to engage in the said act. In Deepak Gulati this
Court observed:
21.... There is a distinction between the mere
breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false
promise. Thus, the court must examine whether
there was made, at an early stage a false promise of
8 27 APL 538.20
marriage by the Accused; and whether the consent
involved was given after wholly understanding the
nature and consequences of sexual indulgence.
There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees
to have sexual intercourse on account of her love
and passion for the Accused, and not solely on
account of misrepresentation made to her by the
Accused, or where an Accused on account of
circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or
which were beyond his control, was unable to
marry her, despite having every intention to do so.
Such cases must be treated differently.
24. Hence, it is evident that there must be
adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time
i.e. at the initial stage itself, the Accused had no
intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to
marry the victim. There may, of course, be
circumstances, when a person having the best of
intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to
various unavoidable circumstances. The "failure to
keep a promise made with respect to a future
uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very
clear from the evidence available, does not always
amount to misconception of fact. In order to come
within the meaning of the term "misconception of
fact", the fact must have an immediate relevance".
Section 90 Indian Penal Code cannot be called into
aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in
entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other,
unless the court is assured of the fact that from the
very beginning, the Accused had never really
intended to marry her.
18. 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
9 27 APL 538.20
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."
9. In the light of this legal position and the
chargesheet which is placed on record, it is clear that
initially the relations of the applicant and the non-applicant
no.2 were established through social media. So also it is
clear from the record that they were in love affair for
certain period. The said love affair then converted into
their consensual relationship. As such it is not the case that
at the very first instance the applicant has deceived the non-
applicant no.2 under the pretext of false marriage and
established the physical relations with her.
10. It is clear that out of their love affair the relations
were established between them. After this relations were
break down the non-applicant no.2 raised the grievance
about the physical relations under the pretext of false
promise of marriage. It is also pertinent to note that after
10 27 APL 538.20
breaking down of the relations both were parted their
separate way. Applicant stated that at present applicant and
non-applicant no.2 has performed their respective marriage
to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives.
In the present case, considering the settled principles of law
as stated above, if it is a case of consensual relationship and
that relations were established out of their love affair
between the parties, then no offence under Section 376 (2)
(n) of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Hence, in my
opinion, the offence under section 376 (2)(n) of the Indian
Penal Code is not made out in the matter.
11. In respect of the offence under the provisions of
Atrocities Act, the only allegation made in the complaint is
that as she belongs to Scheduled Caste, the applicant
refused to marry her, except that, there is no other
allegation made against the applicant. The perusal of
Section 3(1)(w), 3(1)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and its explanation is considered, it is clarified that if
the relations between the parties are voluntarily, then in
11 27 APL 538.20
such cases, offence can't be said to be made out against
applicant under the provisions of Atrocities Act.
12. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion, it
is not a case of establishing the physical relations with a
promise of false marriage. The relations were consensual in
nature and, therefore, no offence is made out against the
present applicant. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
order :
ORDER
(1) The application is allowed.
(2) The proceeding of Special Case No.29/2026 arising
out of Crime No.0214/2020 for the offence punishable
under section 376 (2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3(1)(w), 3(1)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2) (va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against applicant is hereby quashed
and set aside.
(3) No order as to costs.
(Pravin S. Patil, J.)
Gulande
Signed by: A.S. GULANDE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/02/2026 10:24:03
