High Court
Legal Reasoning
cran1430.25-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD6 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1430 OF 2025Dr Atul Naryanrao ChandramoreAge 52 years, Occ. Service asprofessor, R/o. Jaitanvan NagarCanal Road, Taroda (Bk)Nanded, Tq. And Dist. Nanded ...Applicant Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Bhagya Nagar Police Station, NandedTq. and Dist. Nanded 2.XYZ...Respondents …..Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Irfan D. Maniyar APP for Respondent No.1: Mrs. P.R. Bharaswadkar ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:12th AUGUST, 2025 PER COURT :- 1.The present application has been filed seeking quashmentof the charge sheet bearing No.150 of 2024, dated 05.08.2024pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Nanded, arising out of F.I.R.vide C.R. No.242 of 2024, dated 11.6.2024 for the offencespunishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 354-D, 294, 506 of I.P.C. cran1430.25-2- 2.Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learnedA.P.P. for respondent No.1. There is no necessity to issue notice torespondent No.2.3.Learned advocate for the applicant has taken us throughthe copy of charge sheet, including the F.I.R. and submits that theF.I.R. is nothing but a counter blast to the Civil Suit that was filed bythe present applicant bearing Special Civil Suit No. 214 of 2024,before the learned C.J.S.D. Nanded for specific performance ofcontract. The applicant and respondent No.2 are working in thesame Government office and as per the applicant, respondent No.2had entered into an agreement to sale a immovable property,standing in her name, to the present applicant. The said agreementwas entered into on 03.01.2024. Respondent No.2 had acceptedearnest amount on that day. However, when respondent No.2refused to perform her part of contract, the said Civil Suit came to befiled on 23.07.2024. The applicant has also filed criminal complaintagainst respondent No.2 on 03.06.2024 but the F.I.R. was not lodgedon that day and thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged on 11.06.2024 videC.R. No.241 of 2024 against respondent No.2 and her brother, for theoffence punishable under Sections 384, 385, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. Itappears that then present F.I.R. has been lodged with concoctedversion on 11.06.2024. The statements of witnesses, recorded by cran1430.25-3- the police in this case, are most of the relatives and it is hearsay. Nosuch documents or material, as alleged in the F.I.R., have beenseized, then it can be said to be obscene pictures of respondentNo.2. At the most, the relationship can be said to be a consensual innature and therefore, learned advocate for the applicant relies on thedecision in Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal AppealNo.____ of 2024 (arising out Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2793 of 2024) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.11.2024,wherein the decisions in XXXX vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)3 SCC 496 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State ofMaharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 were considered. In that case,from the facts, it was considered that relationship was establishedbetween the appellant and the complainant in 2017 and parties metmultiple times at various places during the years 2017 and 2019.The contents of F.I.R. were considered that the allegations were thataccused had a forceful sexual relationship with her but the informanthad not stopped meeting the accused nor she had filed a criminalcomplaint and therefore, it was inferred that it was a case ofconsensual relationship. The facts in the present case are similar as,as per the F.I.R. itself, they met and started their relationship since17.12.2023. Therefore, it would be unjust to ask the applicant to facethe trial. cran1430.25-4- 4.The first and foremost fact, that is required to be noted, isthat in the application, there is absolutely no pleading that so calledrelationship between the applicant and respondent No.2 wereconsensual in nature. Rather, it is then stated that false andfabricated F.I.R. has been lodged for blackmailing. Therefore, whenthe applicant is not accepting/admitting that there were suchrelationship, no question for considering as to whether there wereconsensual relationship or not, would arise. No doubt, in the presentcase, it appears that Civil Suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 214 of2024 has been filed by the present applicant, but it can be seen that itis after filing of the present F.I.R. At the cost of repetition, we wouldsay that the F.I.R. came to be lodged by respondent No.2 on11.06.2024 and the suit has been filed on 23.07.2024. The applicanthas also stated that he had gone to lodge the F.I.R. againstrespondent No.2 on 03.06.2024, however it was not taken, butultimately, the said C.R. No. 241 of 2024, against respondent No.2and her brother, was also registered on 11.6.2024 i.e. on he sameday on which the present F.I.R. came to be lodged. Now it is for theapplicant to prove that the present F.I.R. is in retaliation and whichcan be proved only at the time of trial and this Court cannot go intothose details under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., under the circumstances,as noted above. cran1430.25-5- 5.The respondent No.2 is 42 years old lady, having adaughter of 10 years. She has stated that her matrimonial disputewas pending before the Court. She states that she is serving atParbhani but resides at Nanded and the present applicant serves inthe same institution is stated to be residing at Nanded and they gotacquainted in the month of November, 2023. They were commutingin Railway from Parbhani to Nanded. She has stated that she calledfor lunch on 17.12.2023 and by giving false promise, he had takensome obscene photos and videos. According to her, she was calledin the house of the applicant, after his wife and children had gone toAurangabad. It was under the pretext that there is office work inrespect of transfer. She has stated that thereafter, by giving threat tomake those photos viral, she was called again at his house in themonth of January and on 09.02.2024. She even states about the factthat the applicant had given her a chit when she had refused to goalongwith him to Parbhani on 18.03.2024. The said chit has beenproduced by her before the police and it is forming part of the chargesheet. Perusal of the said chit (we are refraining ourselves fromproducing the contents of the same for the sake of privacy). But itcertainly states that in the first para, he was blaming her for notcoming to station and he infers that she might have taken that stepsto destroy him. He expressed that he is disturbed but then it gives aangle of life also. In the last para again, he blames by saying that he cran1430.25-6- will not be scared for suicide, resignation etc. and it also indicatesthat respondent No.2 might have got involved herself with someoneelse. She states in the F.I.R. about threats those were given by theapplicant on 19.3.2024 and by following her, the threats were given tomake obscene videos viral. She has also stated about the incidentdated 27.03.2024 of talking by the applicant and he used to follow herat different places. Thus, taking into consideration these allegations,we cannot certainly come to the conclusion that relationship wasconsensual in nature, as the applicant has not pleaded the same.6.Further, we would like to rely upon decision in RajkumarVs. State of Karnataka; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 257, wherein takinginto consideration the facts of the case, it was observed that theCourt is accepting the view taken by the Coordinate Bench inShambu Kharwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 INSC 827 ::2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032, but differentiating the same, it wasobserved that “a relationship may be consensual at the beginning butsame state may not remain so for all times to come. Whenever oneof the partners show their unwillingness to continue with suchrelationship, the character of such relationship as it was when startedwill not continue to prevail” and therefore, by taking a view that therelationship had not remained consensual, the prayer for quashingthe FIR was rejected. Similar view has been taken by the Division
Legal Reasoning
cran1430.25-7- Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat in Criminal Writ PetitionNo.3181 of 2023 (Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs. State of Maharashtraand another). In our opinion, the present case may attract theingredients of Section 375 of I.P.C. punishable under Section 376 ofI.P.C. Therefore, we do not find this to be a fit case where we shouldexercise our power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The applicationstands rejected at the threshold. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/