Hemant Manohar Meshram vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

(PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

The applicant has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the First Information report as well as Final Report bearing Crime No. 417 of 2022 registered with the police station Gittikhadan, Nagpur City. He further, prays for quashing of the charge sheet bearing no. 136/2022 for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

As per the averments in the First Information Report the non-applicant no. 2/ victim lodged a report stating that she got married with one Nitin Surpam in the year 2020, but in the year 2021 since there was a matrimonial discord, there was a divorce between the victim and her husband. She further states that in the moth February, 2022 she got acquainted with Hemant Manohar Meshram that is the present applicant through social media. Mobile numbers were exchanged amongst them and the acquaintance developed into a love relationship. She further states that the applicant was repeatedly insisting her to meet him personally, due to which the complainant came to Nagpur on 21.04.2022 and met the applicant. The applicant in turn took her to Police Line Takli at the house of his friend, and expressed his love towards her and tried to develop physical proximity with her. On the pretext of performing marriage with her, the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the complainant against her wish.

It is further stated in the First Information Report that even thereafter, the complainant as also the applicant were having telephonic conversation amongst them. In the month of July, 2022 it was realised by the complainant that she is pregnant. On realising this, the complainant informed the applicant about the same and requested him to get married. However, the applicant insisted the complainant to abort the pregnancy. The complainant, therefore, informed about the entire episode to her father and brother and then it was decided that a meeting would be arranged to sought out the issue. In the said meeting which ensued, it was decided that they would perform marriage. In fact garlands were exchanged amongst them however, thereafter, the applicant flatly refused to perform the marriage which prompted the complainant to lodge the First Information Report in question which is challenged in the present application.

We have heard Mr. Tejas S. Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant as also Mr. M. J. Khan, learned APP for the non-applicant/ State and Mr. Amol Hunge, learned counsel (appointed) for the non-applicant no. 2.

The learned counsel for the applicant by taking us though the First Information Report and the consequent charge sheet submits that the First Information Report and the ensuing criminal proceeding is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court, since it was purely a consensual relationship. He further submits that there is no intention since inception which is a condition precedent for attracting offence under Section 376 (2)(n) of Indian Penal Code. He therefore, prays for quashing of entire criminal proceeding.

Per contra, learned APP submits that the offence was rightly registered against the complainant as this is not a case mere breach of promise but the intention to deceive and force her to submission. He further submits that during the course of the investigation the investigating officer has obtained the abortion certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Mayo Hospital. Wherein it is clearly stated that the abortion was done. He also states that the DNA report and the C.A. report are still awaited which would even clear the picture. He further states that statements of witnesses were recorded wherein it is clearly stated that the applicant had took the complainant with him and performed sexual intercourse with her. He therefore prays for rejection of the application.

The learned counsel for the non-applicant no. 2 Mr. Amol Hunge while supporting the learned APP states that from the investigation papers and the charge sheet it is clearly revealed that the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and which is supported by ample material on record.

We have perused the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the charge sheet which contains medical papers as also the statements. As can be seen from the charge sheet and the First Information Report, the complainant alleges an incident on 21.04.2022. She narrates in detail the events which led and which followed to the alleged sexual offence as punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, she states about the incident dated 19.05.2022. These are the only two incidents which are narrated in detail by the complainant/ victim. She further states that when she realised she was pregnant in the month of July 2022, the applicant forced to get the child aborted which is also proved. It can also be seen that in the presence of family members the applicant and the complainant on 23.07.2022 exchanged garlands but thereafter, the applicant refused to perform marriage. These facts are borne out of the record.

It can thus be seen that the length of relationship extends from February 2022 to July 2022 and the First Information Report in question is lodged on 27.07.2022 immediately after four days when the parties with their family members met in the temple at Khateshwar Sansthan Talav Jodmoha, Yavatmal. It can also be seen that the informant has narrated in detail how she got acquainted with the applicant and how they came in contact with each other.

The question which needs to be decided is that whether there was intention to deceive right from the inception as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 as also the recent judgment of Samadhan Sitaram Manmothe Vs. State of Maharshtra reported in 2025 INSC 1354. The photographs filed along with the charge sheet clearly shows that the applicant and the complainant exchanged garlands in a temple. Thus, the conduct of the applicant in creating a farce of marriage but subsequently refusing to marry the complainant can clearly be a pointer to the fact that he never had any intention much less a serious one, to marry with the complainant. Even though, the Whatsapp chats filed with the charge sheet on record show that there was a love relationship between the parties, but that would not be a sole factor to infer that the consent was absolute one but not a conditional one.

Due to the facts stated supra and more particularly the short length of relationship and the subsequent conduct of the applicant after the performance of so-called marriage at the temple, we are of the view that the consent was obtained under misconception that the applicant would marry the complainant. Thus the consent was not absolute but conditional that there would be a marriage between the parties. In our view therefore, this would not be a case of mere breach of promise as tried to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Even, if it is assumed that it was a consensual relationship, the consent was vitiated as it was obtained under a misconception and on a promise that the applicant would marry the complainant. Had the applicant not promised the complainant about marriage probably the complainant would not have consented for physical relations. In our view therefore, this would not be a fit case as the relationship was vitiated by fraud the consent being obtained for performing marriage. The applicant as stated supra has flatly refused for performing the marriage. The fact that the applicant insisted for termination of pregnancy resulting in abortion is also a pointer to the fact that the applicant never intended to marry the complainant. No plausible reason can be seen from the First Information Report and the charge sheet that even though, the applicant had honest intentions to marry, he could not do so due to some circumstances beyond his control. On the other hand after the parties having physical relations amongst them, the applicant had flatly refused to marry the complainant. Thus, in our view the offences are prima facie made out against the applicant and this would not be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The fact that there was an intention to deceive right from the inception would be a matter of evidence which has to be decided during the course of trial. It is a settled principle of law that the powers under Section 482 cannot be used due stifle, legitimate prosecution as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Laxmi Narayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. We therefore, pass the following order :-