Prajwal Bharat Surwade vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

The application seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No.23/2025 registered with Police Station Hiwarkhed, Dist. Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 64(2) (f) of the of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) [corresponding Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)], 69, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS [corresponding Section 506 of the IPC] and consequent Charge-sheet No.51/2025 and Sessions Case No.72/2025 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Khamgaon.

The brief facts of the case, as per the FIR, are as under:-

The applicant and the complainant/non-applicant no.2 are related to each other. The applicant is the cousin brother of the husband of the complainant. The complainant’s marriage was solemnized with the cousin brother of the applicant and out of the said wedlock they were blessed with two children. The applicant and the complainant were residing in the same neighborhood and they often used to meet each other. Eventually, their interactions turned into a love relationship.

ii) It is contended in the FIR that when the husband of the complainant was not in the house, the applicant on the pretext of solemnizing marriage forcibly had sexual intercourse with the complainant. Their love relationship continued for a long period of time. When the husband of the complainant came to know about their relationship, he deserted the complainant. Since then, the complainant is residing at her paternal house. The allegation is that even after going to her paternal house, the applicant and the complainant used to meet outside the village and established physical relationship. It is also the case that the complainant eloped with the applicant even from her paternal house and they reside at Pune for quite some time. The father of the complainant lodged a complainant against the applicant and he bought the complainant to her paternal house. Based on the abovesaid allegations the complainant lodged this FIR alleging sexual intercourse by the applicant on the pretext of marriage.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for non-applicant no.2. I have gone through the FIR and the Charge-sheet.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the love relationship between the applicant and the complainant was consensual in nature. The present FIR is filed by the complainant due to misunderstanding and differences between them. The learned counsel for the applicant sought quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

On the other hand, the learned APP for the State submitted that the crime alleged is of heinous nature. Hence, the FIR shall not be quashed and the applicant should be sent for trial and prayed for dismissal of the application.

The notice were issued to the complainant and she had filed an affidavit-in-reply. After perusal of the said reply, there is no doubt that there was a physical relationship between the applicant and the complainant and that it was consensual in nature. According to the complainant because of some misunderstanding and differences, the FIR was lodged against the applicant.

On perusal of the record, it appears from the copy of the order dated 26.03.2025 passed below Exh.1 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Regular Bail Application No.125/2025 reveals that the complainant in her say at Exh.7 stated that the love relationship between the applicant and herself was consensual in nature.

It is also to be noted that the love relationship between the applicant and the complainant lasted for almost five years and she did not raise any voice against it during that period. The record also shows that even after desertion by her husband on this count, the complainant continued her relationship with the applicant and even resided with the applicant at Pune for quite some time where they also entered into sexual intercourse. All these facts and circumstances suggest that the sexual intercourse between the applicant and the complainant was a consensual act on the part of the complainant.

Sofaras, Section 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS are concerned, the offences are non-cognizable and even otherwise, the material on record does not suggest that sexual relationship with the complainant was established by the applicant under threat.

As held by Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [(2025) SCC Online SC 1415] that there is no straight jacket formula where the FIR having allegations of rape cannot be quashed and the Court has to consider the fact of each case independently. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the respective parties as well as the settlement between the parties and under the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case when no allegations of forceful rape has been levelled against the applicant, I am of the view that continuance of the prosecution against the applicant would be nothing but a futile exercise.

With regards to the compoundability of offence, the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, [(2014) 6 SCC 466] has observed that “power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised “sparingly and with caution”. Therefore, a case is made for exercising the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-

The application is allowed.

ii) FIR No.23/2025 registered with Police Station Hiwarkhed, Dist. Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 64(2)(f), 69, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS and consequent Charge-sheet No.51/2025 and Sessions Case No.72/2025 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana are quashed against the applicant.

iii) Rule is made absolute in the above-said terms.