Prakash @ Sumit Keshav Gohane vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1725 Bom

Bombay High Court

Prakash @ Sumit Keshav Gohane vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps ... on 16 February, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:3296-DB




              Judgment

                                                                 4 apl162.21

                                                1

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

                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.162/2021

              Prakash @ Sumit Keshav Gohane,
              aged about 28 years, occupation: private
              service, r/o Hewti, tahsil Umred,
              district Nagpur.                  ..... Applicant.

                                     :: V E R S U S ::

              1. The State of Maharashtra,
              through Police Station Officer,
              Police Station, Umred, district
              Nagpur.

              2. Ku.Rajni Bhaskar Ramteke,
              aged about 26 years, r/o Kawra
              Peth, Umred, tahsil Umred, district
              Nagpur.                  ..... Non-applicants.
              ================================
              Shri Bhushan Dafle, Counsel for the Applicant.
              Shri A.M.Kadukar, APP for the NA No.1/State.
              Shri Syed Salman, Counsel Appointed for NA No.2.
              ================================
              CORAM       : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
              DATE        : 16/02/2026

              ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.

.....2/-

Judgment

4 apl162.21

2. By this application, the applicant is seeking quashing of

FIR in connection with Crime No.933/2019 registered for

offences under Sections 504, 506, and 376 of the IPC and

under Section 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(I)(II) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Atrocities Act) and consequent

proceedings arising out of the same bearing chargesheet

No.8/2020 and Special Case No.89/2020.

3. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged

by non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) on allegations that

she got acquaintance with the applicant through Face-Book in

the year 2016. Thereafter, friendship was developed between

them, which resulted into love affair. It is alleged that they

used to exchange messages on Mobile Phone to each other.

Thereafter, the applicant promised her to marry with her and

on that promise, he used to regularly visit her and maintain

physical relations on various occasions. However, the applicant

.....3/-

Judgment

4 apl162.21

has refused to marry with her and thereby he has committed

the offence.

On the basis of the said allegations, the crime is

registered against the applicant.

4. After registration of the crime, the investigating officer

has carried out investigation and collected CDRs. The

complainant was referred for medical examination and after

completion of the investigation, chargesheet came to be filed

against the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention

to recital of the FIR and statement of the complainant, which

disclose that the said statement and recital of the FIR are itself

sufficient to show the relationship between the applicant and

the complainant was of consensual in nature. Mere breach of

promise is not sufficient to attract the offence.

Moreover, he invited my attention towards fact that the

complainant, 25 years grown up lady, knows consequences of

.....4/-

Judgment

4 apl162.21

her act. She has willingly entered into the relationship and

maintained the physical relationship for more than two years.

Therefore, he submitted that there is no proximity of

"misconception" of fact and the alleged act of physical

relationship.

For all above these grounds, the submitted that the

application deserves to be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned APP for the State and learned

counsel for the complainant have strongly opposed the said

contentions and submitted that statement of the complainant is

sufficient to show that relationship was developed on the

promise of marriage and she is deceived by promising of

marriage by obtaining her "consent". Therefore, the "consent"

obtained is under "misconception" of fact and, therefore, the

application deserves to be rejected.

7. After hearing both sides and perusing the entire

investigation papers, there is no dispute as to fact that the

.....5/-

Judgment

4 apl162.21

applicant and the complainant entered into the relationship

through Social-Media. They got acquaintance with each other.

Thereafter, friendship was developed between them, which

resulted into love affair. It is apparent that out of love affair,

the physical relationship was developed between the applicant

and the complainant. The complainant who herself is a grown

up lady could not be said to have acted under the alleged false

promise given by the applicant or under "misconception" of

fact while giving consent to have sexual relations with the

applicant.

8. Undisputedly, the complainant continued to have such

relationship with the applicant for more than two years. The

"consent" given by her is out of love relationship and out of the

affection for the applicant.

9. Under Section 90 of the IPC, a "consent" given under a

misconception of fact is no "consent" in the eyes of law. But

the misconception of fact has to be in proximity of time to the

occurrence and cannot be spread over a period of more than

.....6/-

Judgment

4 apl162.21

one year. It hardly needs any elaboration that the consent by

the complainant was a conscious and informed choice made

by her after due deliberation, it being spread over a long

period of time coupled with a conscious positive action not to

protest.

10. This aspect is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the celebrated judgment in the case of Pramod Suryabhan

Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and anr, reported in (2019)9

SCC 608. The Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering catena of

decisions, 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

.....7/-

Judgment

4 apl162.21

immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's

decision to engage in the sexual act".

11. The applicant is also charged under 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v),

3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(I)(II) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

As far as these offences are concerned, there is no

whisper in the FIR or the statement of the complainant that

merely because she belongs to the Scheduled Caste, such false

promise was given to her.

12. It is not the purport of the Atrocities Act that every act

of intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person who is

not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a

person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe

would attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely

because it is committed against a person who happens to be a

member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the

contrary, words "with intent to humiliate" as they appear in

.....8/-

Judgment

4 apl162.21

the text of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably

linked to the caste identity of the person who is subjected to

intentional insult or intimidation. Not every intentional insult

or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will

result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal

No.2622/2024 (Shajan Skaria vs. The State of Kerala and

anr) decided on 23.8.2024 observed that, " it is only in those

cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place

either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to

reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority

of the "upper castes" over the "lower castes/untouchables", the

notions of 'purity' and 'pollution', etc. that it could be said to be

an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act,

1989."

14. In view of the above observations, the offences under

the provisions of the Atrocities Act are also not made out

against the applicant.

.....9/-

Judgment

4 apl162.21

15. For all above these reasons, the application deserves to

be allowed by exercising powers under Section 482 of the

Code. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(1) The criminal application is allowed.

(2) FIR in connection with Crime No.933/2019 registered for

offences under Sections 504, 506, and 376 of the IPC and

under Section 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(I)(II) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Atrocities Act) and consequent

proceedings arising out of the same bearing chargesheet

No.8/2020 and Special Case No.89/2020 are hereby quashed

and set aside to the extent of the present applicant.

Application stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 25/02/2026 18:54:40