Bhimrao @ Ravi Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)

Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing and setting aside the Charge-sheet, registered vide Sessions Case No.440/2024, pending before the District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur arising out of First Information Report vide Crime No.491/2020, dated 05.11.2020 by the Police Station Kamptee, District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the said First Information Report, the non-applicant No.2, who is the first informant in the present matter lodged a report on 05.11.2020 that she got acquainted with the applicant in the month of December 2018 through a Online Portal, namely, “shadi.com”. Both the applicant and non-applicant No.2 were looking for a suitable match on the said Portal. Furthermore, it is stated in the First Information Report that on 12^th May 2019 they met personally and had a talk with each other. As time passed by they began to like to each other and then thought of marrying each other. In the month of December 2019 the applicant proposed non-applicant No.2 for marriage. Furthermore, after getting acquainted with the families, the marriage proposal was finalized and then on 03.01.2020 the applicant and non-applicant No.2 were engaged. It is further stated that subsequent to engagement on 29.01.2020, the applicant on the pretext that they are now going to get marry, established physical relations with non-applicant No.2. Initially, the non-applicant No.2 was reluctant, but the applicant forced himself on her. Thereafter, the date of marriage was fixed as 1^st May, 2020.

It is further stated in the First Information Report that on 12^th May, 2020 on the day of Holi, the applicant again established physical relations with non-applicant No.2. The said act was repeated on 20^th April 2020, 30^th April, 2020 and 18^th August, 2020. It is further stated in the First Information Report that the marriage between the parties was postponed due to the demise of aunt of the applicant No.2 to 16.07.2020.

Thereafter, it is stated in the First Information Report, that the applicant demanded an amount of Rs.2/- lakhs from the non-applicant No.2 towards expenses for marriage. The non-applicant No.2 when showed her inability, the mother of the applicant stated that the family doesn’t want a girl from Nagpur as their daughter-in-law and they would make the applicant marry a girl from a village. The mother of the applicant, therefore, refused for the marriage of the applicant with the non-applicant No.2. It is further stated in the First Information Report that in spite of this fact the applicant showed his readiness to marry, but then subsequently started to refused her calls.

In that view of the matter, the non-applicant No.2 has lodged the present First Information Report and the consequent charge-sheet as stated above. It is this First Information Report and the charge-sheet which is challenged in the present application.

We have heard Mr. Amol M. Jaltare, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Swati Kolhe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the relationship is entirely consensual in nature looking at the ages of the parties. He furthermore submits that no offence much less as stated in the First Information Report is made out from the plain reading of the said F.I.R. It is his submission that only because the marriage could not be performed due to refusal of the family member, the present F.I.R. has been lodged to somehow implicate the applicant in the criminal matter.

Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while vehemently opposing the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has done sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage and, therefore, a consent or otherwise of non-applicant No.2 would not have any relevance.

In the backdrop of these submissions we have perused the record of the matter. As can be seen from the record the non-applicant No.2 as also the applicant are 28 years of age. Thus, they are mature and adult persons having understanding of the consequences of entering into relationship. Looking at the ages of the parties, and looking at the length of relationship, which dates back to December 2018 till November 2020 i.e. for almost two years, it can be said that the relationship was of consensual. Admittedly, the parties were engaged and were about to marry, but could not marry due to refusal of the mother of the applicant. It can thus be said that it is a case of breach of promise. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on judgment of Raju Krishna Shedbalkar Vs. State of Karnataka and another, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 791, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has differentiated between a mere breach of promise and a criminal offence. He has also relied on order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1889/2024, Nitin B. Nikhare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the physical relations were established pursuant to promise to marry will not amount to rape in every case. For the offence of rape to be made out two conditions need to be satisfied that the promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning and that the false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations. A beneficial reference can be made in his regard to the celebrated judgment of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2019 (9) SSC 608. Furthermore, in the judgment of Jothiragawan Vs. State of Represented by the Inspector of Police and another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 628, the Hon’ble Apex Court while relying on a earlier judgment bearing Criminal Appeal No.282/2085 stated that the consensual relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix can be inferred from the perusal of the record of the matter.

In the present case also perusal of First Information Report as also the charge-sheet suggest that the alleged promise to marry could not be fulfilled by the applicant due to the intervening circumstances. Consequently, the relationship ended because of which the present F.I.R. and the consequent Charge-sheet is filed. Thus, in our view letting the applicant face trial would be nothing short of an abuse of process of the Court which cannot be permitted. Furthermore, as relied by the counsel for the applicant in the judgment of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another, in Criminal Appeal No.3831/2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case where there is a promise of marriage the Court must very careful examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim or has malafide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust as the later falls in the ambit of cheating or deception.

Applying these yardsticks as laid down by the Apex Court and as observed herein above the applicant and the non-applicant No.2 were in fact engaged and, therefore, it can be safely presumed that the applicant had intention to marry the non-applicant No.2. Thus, in spite of having best of such intention he was unable to marry her due to the unavoidable circumstance. In that view of the matter, continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicant would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and a travesty of justice. We therefore pass the following order.