[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Khandu @ Khanderao Pitambar Londhe And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2107
CriRevn-277-2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 277 OF 2025
1. Khandu @ Khanderao Pitambar Londhe
Age : 27 years, Occu. Service
2. Manoj Pitambar Londhe
Age : 30 years, Occu. Service,
Both R/o. Babhalgaon Road,
Latur, Taluka and District Latur. ... Revision
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
.....
Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Respondent-State.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 14.01.2026
Pronounced on : 20.01.2026
ORDER :
1. Instant revision is an offshoot of the order dated 28.08.2024
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Latur, below Exhibit
15 in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2023, thereby rejecting the revision
petitioners' prayer for discharge from crime no. 366 of 2021
registered for offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 377 and 420 of IPC
at Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur.
CriRevn-277-2025
2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would point out
that, both, complainant and revision petitioner no.1, got acquainted
with each other in January 2017. According to learned counsel, both,
complainant and revision petitioner no.1, are full grown adults and
they both are currently posted in police department. He would point
out that, there is no dispute that their initial acquaintance grew into
love affair and that, there were intimate physical relations between
them and though at that time there was no promise of marriage, there
was consensual indulgence by the complainant. That, there was no
false promise of marriage, though subsequently both parties
performed marriage in a temple and there is certificate to that extent.
He pointed out that, revision petitioner no.1 has never denied or
refused to marry complainant and he was and is ready to cohabit as
husband, however, complainant has reported that there was false
promise of marriage and merely for refusal to perform big marriage
ceremony, with ulterior motive, complaint has been lodged alleging
above offence with Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur, that too
after four years of love affair and long association. He pointed out
that, false allegations are levelled regarding impregnating
complainant and forcing her to undergo abortion, of which there is no
evidence.
CriRevn-277-2025
3. He very emphatically submitted that, as regards the allegations
of Section 376(2)(n) and 377 of IPC are concerned, the same are
firstly belated, and whatever relations were established years back,
were consensual and not against will, wish or participation of
complainant. He very candidly submitted that discharge is sought
only from offence of alleged rape and unnatural offence and not other
offence, and he undertakes to face the trial for remaining section/s for
which also, there are allegations at a belated stage and even when
ingredients of the same are not available in the entire charge sheet.
Thus, it is his submission that, he confines his prayer for discharge
from charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of IPC only.
4. As opposed to it, learned APP would submit that, though there
was acquaintance, confidence of the complainant was gained on the
pretext of performing marriage and repeatedly against her wish,
physical relation was maintained. According to him, in the
complainant, it is specifically stated that she was not willing partner.
That moreover, after impregnating her, accused avoided to perform
marriage and only on her insistence, some ceremony was performed
that too, in a temple and finally accused refused and avoided to
perform marriage in presence of acquaintances of each other. Thus,
according to learned APP, his intention of cheating her was implicit.
CriRevn-277-2025
According to him, there is sufficient material to both, frame the
charge as well as make accused face trial. Offence and allegations
being serious, he justifies the order of trial court in refusing to
discharge the accused.
5. Before testing the case on merits regarding entitlement of
revision petitioners to seek discharge, it would to apposite to give a
brief account of the settled judicial precedent while entertaining
application for discharge 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.
6. 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-277-2025
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.
7. Bearing in mind the above settled legal principles, perused the
complainant on the strength of which crime has been registered. The
same seems to be of 29.05.2021. At the time of report with police,
complainant has given her age at 24 years and her occupation as a
Constable. Substance of her complaint is that, around December
2016, she was aspiring to join police department and so joined
training institute at Latur. She claims that, while she was practicing
for running in January 2017, she got acquainted with revision
CriRevn-277-2025
petitioner no.1, who was already posted at Ahmedpur Police Station
as Police Constable. She reported that, their acquaintance developed
into love affair and they both started meeting each other as well as
talking each other on phone. According to her, that time itself,
accused revision petitioner no.1 demanded physical relations with
her, which she claims to have refused. However, according to her,
assuring to perform marriage with her, against her wish, he
maintained physical relation as well as unnatural sexual relation with
her, i.e. in the his Government residential quarter as well as at
Madhuban lawn at Latur.
Her such version indicates that she visited his premises. When
at the time of complaint of May 2021 she reported her age at 24
years, and she claims to have met accused in January 2017, then she
must be around 20 years of age and as such, a major in January 2017.
8. She further stated that in April, she joined police department at
Nandurbar and even thereafter she was visiting accused at Ahmedpur,
i.e. after four months of above episodes of sexual encounter and
unnatural sex taking place at Latur in January 2017. This time, she
reported that she used to visit his quarter and there, she claims that,
there were physical relations between them. It is pertinent to note
CriRevn-277-2025
that at that point of time, i.e. during their meetings in April, she has
not stated about physical relations being developed against her with
or again after promising to marry her, and she simply states casually
that there were physical relations between them, which too suggests
that she was consenting party too. At the same breath, she reported
that at that time, she was already two months pregnant. If the said
period is taken into account, there have to be allegations of sexual
relations around February. But, as stated above, from the complaint,
it is emerging that, after allegations of sexual relations in January
2017, directly she is reporting about they both having sexual relations
in April. Here, she merely reports that accused asked her to terminate
the pregnancy, which according to her, he wanted to retain it only
after marriage. Then she states that against her wish, she was given
abortion pills at Ahmedpur. According to her, such episodes occurred
at Ahmedpur, but as pointed out, there is no distinct evidence about
so called pregnancy or even its termination.
9. Then she reported that in June 2017, she came to be posted at
Upnagar Police Station, Nandurbar and while she was staying alone,
accused used to come to meet her once in a month or two, and that
time also there were physical relations between them. This time also
she does not speak about any promise of marriage or sexual relation
CriRevn-277-2025
to be against her wish. Later on she alleged that, when she insisted
for marriage, accused started avoiding her and therefore she seems to
have reported it to the Superintendent of Police who alleged directed
her to lodge report. However, it seems that two years thereafter, i.e.
in 2019, there was some indulgence by Police Inspector which
prompted her to withdraw her application and then she claims that
on 25.03.2019, she was taken by accused revision petitioner no.1 to
Mukteshwar temple at Ausa and he performed marriage with her and
also snapped photographs.
10. Then she complains of demanding marriage registration
certificate, upon which the same was assured by the accused to be
given after her transfer at Latur, but he did not give it and so, again
on 29.03.2021 she filed another complaint with Superintendent of
Police office and during inquiry before P.I., accused allegedly told her
on 18.05.2021 that they would perform big marriage ceremony in
presence of all. That, according to her, there were talks between both
sides and writing work was done on a bond paper and that time also,
he assured her to give her marriage certificate. She again reported
that, she, her mother and brother returned back to Parbhani and
accused came there on 23.05.2021 and they both together came to
Latur and resided at Parth Lawn where they established physical
CriRevn-277-2025
relations and on next day, i.e. on 24.05.2021, he took her to Advocate
to gather certificate issued by Mukteshwar Temple, but as the same
was not received, they both returned back and stayed at Jadhav
Lodge at Ausa where again physical relations were established
between them.
11. She further claims that on 28.05.2021, accused telephoned her,
abused her sister in law and mother and therefore all went to talk at
Latur. There, quarrel took place between both sides where she alleged
she being slapped by accused and his brother Manoj assaulting her by
means of fiber stick. Regarding this episode of 28.05.2021, on the
next day, she lodged complaint with Vivekanand Police Station
alleging commission of offence of maintaining repeated physical
relation against her wish, indulging in unnatural sex and getting her
pregnancy terminated.
12. In the light of above tenor of the complaint, in the considered
opinion of this Court, it is clear that at the outset, both, complainant
and accused, are major by age. Their acquaintance since January
2017 admittedly grew into a love affair followed by physical intimacy.
Complaint shows that, there were several physical encounters, but
according to her, accused used to say that he would marry her. She
CriRevn-277-2025
was at that time a major girl and not minor. She had already attained
discreet age and as such, knew what is good for her and what is not.
It is noticed that at only one time, she has complained of physical
relation being maintained against her wish, but in the remaining
complaint, she has not uttered a word about she insisting for marriage
and he further assuring her of the marriage and thereafter
maintaining physical relation. It appears that it is she who had visited
him at his Government premises, where alleged physical relation took
place. After January 2017, she reported physical relation to be
established in the month of April 2018 at his place at Ahmedpur.
After two months of pregnancy, she claims that he gave her abortion
pills, but as submitted, except leveling omnibus allegations, there are
no details about it as to where and when it so happened. After
lodging complaint with Superintendent of Police, no FIR has been
lodged in spite of being advised to do so. After settlement in a
quarrel, she seems to have accompanied him to the temple on
25.03.2019 and was party to the temple marriage. Subsequently it
appears that, in May 2021, as the assurance of performing big
marriage was not met, there was yet another quarrel resulting into
alleged episode of slapping by revision petitioner no.1 and beating by
revision petitioner no.2, who is brother of revision petitioner no.1. As
regards revision petitioner no.2 is concerned, his name has cropped
CriRevn-277-2025
up in the said episode dated 28.05.2021. There is nothing to connect
him with offence under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of IPC.
13. As stated above, revision petitioners have confined prayers for
discharge from charges under Section 376(2)(n) and 377 of IPC. As
regards to rest of the charges of cheating and beating are concerned,
application is not pressed hard.
14. From above discussion, apparently it is a case of long standing
association after long standing love relation. Parties are adults and
there seem to be several sexual encounters resulting into pregnancy.
Therefore, the relation which began in 2017, seems to have gone sour
on 28.05.2021 and for the first time, only after the episode which
took place on 28.05.2021, FIR seems to have been lodged leveling
above allegations. As pointed out, merely for refusing to perform big
marriage ceremony and handing over earlier temple marriage
registration certificate, crime has been registered. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the above allegations to the extent of
commission of offence under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 IPC are
purely out of annoyance and at a belated stage. Hence, case for
indulgence to that extent being made out, revision petitioners partly
succeed. Resultantly, following order is passed :
CriRevn-277-2025
ORDER
I. The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.
II. The order dated 28.08.2024 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-4, Latur, below Exhibit 15 in Sessions Case No.
68 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside.
III. The revision petitioners stand discharged only to the extent of
offence under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of IPC in Sessions
Case No. 68 of 2023 (Crime No. 366 of 2021 registered at
Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur).
IV. Needless to mention that the revision petitioners are not
discharged from the rest of the offences mentioned in Crime
No. 366 of 2021 registered at Vivekanand Chowk Police
Station, Latur.
V. The Criminal Revision Application is accordingly disposed off.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
