High Court · 2025

Legal Reasoning

cria-864.241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.864 OF 20241) Dnyaneshwar S/o Vishnu Surywanshi, Age-34 years, Occu:Agriculturist,2) Akash S/o Shamrao Lature, Age-27 years, Occu:Agri.,Applicant Nos.1 and 2 Both:R/o-Jamalpur, Taluka-Ausa,District-Latur. ...APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Ausa, Taluka-Ausa, District-Latur,2) X. Y. Z. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.S. Thombre Advocate for Applicants. Ms. Rashmi P. Gour, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Vishweshwar H. Pathade Advocate for Respondent No.2 ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 17th JUNE 2025DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 30th JUNE 2025 cria-864.242 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Application has been filed for quashing theproceedings in S.C. No. 55 of 2023, pending before the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Latur, arising out of the FirstInformation Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 40 of2023, registered with Police Station, Ausa, Taluka-Ausa, District-Latur for the offence punishable under Sections 376-D, 366,354-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Thombre for applicants,learned APP Ms. Gour for respondent No.1 – State and learnedAdvocate Mr. Pathade for respondent No.23.Learned Advocate for the applicants as well as respondentNo.2 submits that now there is a compromise betweenrespondent No.2 and the applicants. Affidavit has been filed byrespondent No.2 - informant stating that the applicants andrespondent No.2 are close friends and having friendly relationssince long but due to misunderstanding she had filed the FIR.The compromise has taken place with the intervention of cria-864.243relatives and elderly persons from the society. They havedecided to end the dispute and maintain good relations betweenthem and on that count they prayed for quashment of theproceedings and the FIR.4.At the outset, it is to be noted that the offence that wasregistered was under the category of heinous crime andtherefore, a compromise at a later stage will have to bescrutinized minutely. Merely because the informant is now givingconsent for quashment of the proceedings, this Court cannot useits powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedurein favour of the applicants.5.Respondent No.2, who is 32 years old married lady, havingtwo children, had lodged the FIR with the story that her familyhas agricultural land in village Jamalpur. She was proceeding ontar road from Khuntegaon to Jamalpur around 2.00 to 2.30 p.m.on 25th January 2023, by walk. A black coloured car came nearher and a car driver asked her as to where the road goes. Sheanswered that it goes to Khuntegaon. The person who wassitting on the rear seat of the car had thrown something on theface of the informant and as a result of which she felt giddiness cria-864.244and she could sense that the person seating on the rear seat ofthe car had dragged her inside the car. The person had coveredhis face with a handkerchief, but then when he took out thehandkerchief, she could identify him as applicant No.1 who wasfrom her village. He made her to lie on the rear seat of the carand by manhandling her, he was soliciting sexual favour fromher. He also assaulted her on her face, as a result of which shesuffered mucosal lacerated wound to her lips. Thereafter she wasmade to consume some red colour liquid from a bottle and thenshe was only able to sense the movements made with her body.She was taken at Akshay lodge in village Ausa around 3.10 p.m.She was taken to a room on the third floor where applicant No.1had forcible intercourse with her. When she resisted, there wasquarrel between applicant No.1 and herself. At that time lodgeowner had come to the room and she could be saved. Butaround 4.30 p.m., applicant No.1 had brought her down and bymaking her to seat in the car, took her towards Latur. In betweenthe vehicle stopped and applicant No.1 was saying, why she isunable to understand that he cannot live without her. Aftertaking to Latur, she was left on the road by giving threats to killif she discloses anything to her family. She went to LaxmiHospital for treatment and by taking mobile of a person in the cria-864.245hospital, she gave phone call to her husband. She had sustainedinjuries. Along with her husband, she went home on that day,but on the next day she lodged the FIR. Her supplementarystatement has been recorded on 6th March 2023 and at that timeshe disclosed that the name of the car driver which she came toknow as Akash Shamrao Lature i.e. applicant No.2. 6. Here, we are required to consider the material in thecharge-sheet. Statement of the lodge owner has been recordedand he confirms that on 25th January 2023, around 4.00 p.m.,he heard the voice of crying of a lady from a room, therefore, heknocked the door. He found that the lady and the man were notwearing any clothes but the lady had taken a cloth around herbody. He asked as to why the lady is crying and then the mantold that there was quarrel between them. He assured that theywill not quarrel and therefore, the lodge owner went but againhe heard the cries of the lady within five minutes. Again he wentto the room and the door was opened by applicant No.1. Thelodge owner again told him that they should not quarrel. Heabused them and asked them to vacate the room by wearingclothes. He told that as a lady had sustained injury to hermouth, the stains of the blood had fallen on the tiles of the cria-864.246room. In the spot panchnama, the blood stains have beencollected. There is a statement of lodge manager also. Themanager says that when applicant No.1 had come for bookingthe room, he gave his identity card and when the manager askedthe name of the lady, at that time applicant No.1 gave differentname. He also confirms about the quarrel that had taken placebetween applicant No.1 and respondent No.2. There is alsostatement of one Ayub Pathan, who is owner of the backcoloured car. He states that both the applicants had come to himaround 1.00 p.m., on 25th January 2023 and they had taken hiscar on the pretext that they they want to bring grocery articlesfrom Latur. 7.Thus, there appears to be prima facie evidence and nowrespondent No.2 states that she as well as the applicants are theclose friends and they are having friendly relations since long.Now the quashment of the FIR and the proceedings has beenstated to be on the ground of misunderstanding in lodging theFIR. The misunderstanding cannot be to the extent of lodgingthe FIR in respect of committing rape on her. The real terms ofcompromise have not been brought on record. There isabsolutely no statement that the contents of the FIR are cria-864.247correct, however, she wants to forgive the applicants forwhatever reasons. The terms of compromise are unacceptablefor quashing the FIR and the proceedings. Of course we areaware that the possibility of respondent No.2 turning hostileduring the trial cannot be ruled out. But the trial Court wouldthen be equipped with the powers to take action for perjuryagainst respondent No.2. Such type of compromises are not inthe interest of the society. It would be then easy for the accusedpersons to get the consent of such informants by puttingpressure or using money power. The applicants/accused cannotbe allowed to play with the law and therefore, we do not find thisto be a fit case where we can exercise our powers under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8.The Application stands rejected. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEasb/JUNE25