AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1] This application claims quashment of First Information Report No. 273/2013, dated 21.06.2013, registered for the offence punishable under Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Wardha, against the applicant. The application was amended and ChargeÂsheet bearing No. 83/2014
filed on 26.03.2014 in continuation of first information report is made the subject matter of challenge in this application along with the proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 204/2014, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha.
2] On 13.11.2014, this Court granted Rule and passed an interim order, which is reproduced below;
Coram : B.R. Gavai & V.M. Deshpande, JJ. Dated : November 13, 2014
Rule.
Heard Mr. Firdos Mirza, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A.B.Moon, learned counsel for the nonÂapplicant No.2.
Taking into consideration the allegations in the first information report on its face value, it would reveal that it is the case of the first informant that
she and the applicant were working in the same office. She had left her husband and was residing with her son. The applicant knowing this, has
developed intimacy with her and induced her to have sexual relationship with him. The applicant also used to take her at various places including Bor
Dharan and Shegaon for having sexual contacts with her. The wife of the applicant having knowledge of the same, came to the house of the first
informant and created a scene. It is the case of the first informant that having done this, the applicant himself addressed a notice to the first informant
and as such being mentally and physically oppressed, she has lodged the first information report.
It could thus be undisputedly seen from the version of the first informant herself that when the applicant made false promise to her of marriage, she
was having a subsisting marriage so also the applicant was having a subsisting marriage.
In that view of the matter, we find that the applicant has made out a case for grant of interim relief. There shall be interim relief in terms of prayer
clause (aii).
Mr. R.S. Nayak, learned APP waives notice for nonÂapplicant No.1 and Mr. A.B. Moon, learned counsel waives notice for nonapplicant No.2.
3] Shri Mirza, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prashant Bharti vrs. State
of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1123 (S.C.) and has urged that the Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceedings instituted
for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 328 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He has also relied upon the observations in paragraph 16 of the
said decision, wherein the Apex Court has taken into consideration the fact that the complainant/prosecutrix was married and her marriage subsisted
on the dates on which she alleged the physical relations with the accused and in such situation, the Apex Court has held that the assertion made by the
complainant/prosecutrix that she was induced to a physical relationship by the accused on the basis of a promise to marry her stands irrefutably
falsified.
4] Shri Moon, the learned counsel appearing for the NonÂapplicant No.2 â€" complainant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Kirthi @ Karthick vrs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamul Nadu, reported in 2013 (7) Scale 777 and the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Omprakash Agrawal vrs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2383. He has
urged that it is not the stand of the applicantÂaccused that it was a case of consent, but the stand is that, the accused was falsely implicated by the
NonÂapplicant No.2 and whether the allegations are false or not, is required to be gone into by the trial Court in the proceedings of trial. He submits
that the Court has to refuse to interfere in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5] There is no dispute that the complainantÂrespondent No.2 had developed physical relations with the applicant at several places and at several
times. Shri Moon, the learned counsel appearing for the NonÂapplicant No.2 admits that the NonÂapplicant No. 2 was married woman on the date on
which the applicantÂaccused is said to have developed physical relationship with her and that her marriage subsisted as on all those dates. Keeping
aside the fact that the complainant was not knowing that the applicant was married, it was not expected of her to be in physical relationship with the
person other than the husband, particularly when she herself was a married woman and her marriage subsisted on such dates. The ratio of the
decision of the Apex Court in Prashant Bharti's case squarely applies to the facts of the present case to hold that the assertion made by the NonÂ‐
applicant no.2/complainant that she was induced to a physical relationship by the applicantÂaccused on the basis of a promise to marry her stands
irrefutably falsified.
6] The two decisions relied upon by Shri Moon would have no applicability in the present case for the reason that in the decision of the Apex Court,
the accused and the complainant were unmarried, whereas in the decision of this Court, there was a decree for divorce subsisting on the date of
incident in favour of the prosecutrix.
7] In the result, this application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (ai), which are reproduced below:
(a) quash the impugned FIR No. 273/2013, dated 21.06.2013 registered u/s. 376 of IPC at Police Station Wardha City, Wardha against the applicant.
(ai) quash and set aside the charge sheet bearing no. 83/14 filed on 26.03.2014 in continuation of FIR No. 273/2013 registered on 21.06.2013.
8] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No orders as to costs.