Anurag Ravindra Umaley vs State Of Maharashtra

Prakash D. Naik, J

The applicant is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC. Applicant preferred an application for discharge before the Sessions Court which has been rejected vide order dated 28th July, 2016.

2 Prosecution case is that the complainant who is aged about 30 years, was in relationship with the accused for a period of about seven years. They had a love affair. The accused promised that he will marry her. The accused had sexual relationship with the complainant. When he refused to marry her, FIR was lodged on 5th December, 2013.

3 Learned advocate for the applicant submits that both the parties were major. They were in relationship with each other for a period of about seven years. They had physical relationship which was consensual in nature. There was a love affair between both the parties. Taking the facts as it is, the offence under Section 376 or 420 of IPC would not be made out. Learned advocate relied upon several decisions in support of his submission. One of the decision was delivered in the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46 .

4 Learned APP opposed grant of relief. It is submitted that the Sessions Court had rightly rejected the application for discharge. The submissions advanced by the advocate for the applicant cannot be considered at this stage. The consent was obtained under misconception of fact on account of marriage and charges under Section 376 as well as 420 are attracted. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Devdan Salvi Vs. State of Maharashtra 216 All MR (Cri.) 1239.

5 Considering the factual aspects of the matter and the issues raised in this matter, arguable questions are involved in this application which requires admission of this application and grant of interim relief.

:: ORDER ::

(i) Admit;

(ii) There shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (c).