High Court
Legal Reasoning
1criappln No.3452 & 3453-2024IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3452 OF 20241.Ram S/o. Ukandji Dukrewad,Age : 59 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o. Gokunda, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded.2.Ajay S/o. Ram Dukrewad,Age : 27 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o. Gokunda, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded.3.Pratima Ram Dukrewad,Age : 33 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o. Gokunda, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded.…. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Bhagyanagar,Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.2.XYZ …. Respondents....Advocate for Applicants : Mrs. Surekha G. ChincholkarAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. V.K. KotechaAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. P.V. Gole h/f Mr. V.D. Gunale.…ANDCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3453 OF 20241.Sheshekalabai W/o. Manikrao Tilewad,Age : 66 Years, Occu. : Household & Agril.,R/o. Korata, Tq. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal.
Legal Reasoning
2criappln No.3452 & 3453-20242.Manikrao S/o. Champatrao Tilewad,Age : 80 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o. Korata, Tq. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal.3.Arun S/o. Manikrao Tilewad,Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o. Korata, Tq. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal.4.Vinod S/o. Manikrao Tilewad,Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o. Korata, Tq. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal.…. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Bhagyanagar,Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.2.XYZ …. Respondents....Advocate for Applicants : Mrs. Surekha G. ChincholkarAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. V.K. KotechaAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. P.V. Gole h/f Mr. V.D. Gunale.…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 16th July 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.Heard learned Advocate for both sides as well as learnedAPP for the State. 3criappln No.3452 & 3453-20242.The present applications are filed for quashing the FirstInformation Report (hereinafter referred to as “the F.I.R.”) andcharge-sheet bearing No.63 of 2022, under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”),arising out of Crime bearing No.0169 of 2022, registered with BhagyaNagar Police Station, Dist. Nanded, dated 16.05.2022, for theoffences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 509, 120(B), 504and 506 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as “the I.P.C.”). 3.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 16.05.2022, in which respondent No.2/informantaverred that she is a police constable. In the year 2018, when she wasserving at Kinwat, she went to her sister's house at Korta,Tq. Umerkhed, Dist. Yavatmal. That time, she met with accused No.1Raju Tilewad and they got acquainted with each other. Theyexchanged their mobile phone numbers and started talking with eachother. In the year 2016, she got married. It was a love marriage. Herparents opposed that marriage. After marriage, her husband treatedher with cruelty. Therefore, in the year 2017, she filed a divorceproceedings against him. 4criappln No.3452 & 3453-20244.The informant further averred in her report that despiteknowing the fact that she filed divorce proceeding in the Court, RajuTilewad tried to express affection towards her and talk with her indecent manner. She came to know that he was taking disadvantage ofher loneliness and divorce proceedings, therefore, she rebuffed himand ended communication with him. Thereafter, he came to herhouse and told her that he loves her, he did not have any problemwith her being married, he will marry her, he would make her happyand assured her. He was trying to understand her difficulties. Shebelieved his words and as she was in grief and in hopeful that sooneror later, divorce will happen, therefore, she started communicationwith him by means of phone calls, messages, chatting, etc. 5.The informant further averred in her report that, RajuTilewad used to come to meet her at Police Quarters Nanded. Theirconversation happened more after they spent more time together.Therefore, rumors were spreading about them among their relatives.Therefore, she stopped talking with him. That time, Raju told her thatif she stops talking with him, what will happen with him, as soon asshe gets divorce, he would marry her, until then, he would focus onstudy for competitive exams. He made her to believe that theirmarried life would be better if he secures a job. He informed about 5criappln No.3452 & 3453-2024their marriage to his family members. His family members agreed totheir marriage. Since then, she used to go his house. The nephew ofRaju viz. Shubham Tilewad was brought by him to her for education.She spent her money on his education and on the say of Raju, shegave money to applicant No.3 Arun Tilewad and No.4 Vinod Tilewadin C.A. No.3453 of 2024. Moreover, she mortgaged her ornamentsand gave money to Raju. She obtained a loan of Rs.1 Lakhs and gaveit to Raju for construction of his house. Therefore, his love wasincreased towards her and he, intermittently, used to come to meether. That time, her sister's sons and nephew of Raju were takingeducation and residing in her room. They were knowing that fact. 6.The informant further averred in her report that, RajuTilewad was expressing his desire of physical relationship, but sheopposed and refused the said demand. Once, she met with anaccident and Raju came to meet her. He expressed his desire of sexualintercourse and forcibly established physical relationship with herwithout her wish. Thereafter also, on the pretext of marriage, heforcibly established physical relationship with her at three differentplaces. She did not tell that fact to anybody as she was in fear ofmaligning her image. On 01.09.2021, she got divorce and asked Rajuto fix the date of marriage. Thereupon, he gave evasive answers to 6criappln No.3452 & 3453-2024her and avoided to talk with her. Therefore, on 22.12.2021, she wentto village Korata and asked the parents of Raju for marriage. Hisparents told her to call her parents. On 23.12.2021, a meeting wasorganized between her family members and family members of Raju.In that meeting, it was decided to perform ring ceremony after Paushmonth and thereafter, to fix the date of marriage. On the same day,applicant No.3 Arun Tilewad called her at his house. She went there,but Raju was not present. Therefore, she tried to call Raju by makingphone call, but he was out of reach.7.The informant further averred in her report that, on25.12.2021, she received threatening messages from the mobile ofapplicant No.2 Ajay Dukrewad. Thereafter, she went to Nanded forduty. After Paush month, she contacted with the applicants and askedfor marriage. They did not respond her and tell about Raju.Thereafter, she contacted applicant No.1 Ram Dukrewad by makingphone call. The wife and daughter of Ram Dukrewad abused her anddefamed her and told her to not to call them. She then contactedapplicant No.4 Vinod Tilewad by making a phone call. He abused herin filthy language and threatened to kill her. On 08.02.2022, shemade a complaint with Tanta Mukti President at Korata as Raju wasnot in contact. The president of that committee communicated her in 7criappln No.3452 & 3453-2024writing that she could take her own decision. On 23.02.2022, she senta letter on Whats APP to their community based Samiti at Yavatmaland Nanded. They took cognizance of the letter and asked ArunTilewad about Raju. He informed them that Ram Dukrewad knewabout Raju. Then, they contacted Ram Dukrewad. He told them thathe communicated with Raju through Maroti Pilwad and Datta Pilwad,but, Raju did not appear before any committee. Therefore, on14.03.2022, she went to search Raju at his house. Family members ofRaju abused her and jostled with her. She told them that she will notgo until she meets with Raju and stayed in their house. Familymembers of Raju were not searching him and threatened her that ifsomething bad happened with Raju, they will kill her. She wasfrightened and on 18.03.2022, she went back with Datta Pilwad.Though Raju left the house, no missing report was lodged by thefamily members. 8.The informant further averred in her report that on24.03.2022, her former husband made a phone call to her and saidthat he is at village Korata and he talked to Raju and his parents. Heabused her in filthy language and threatened her. Therefore, sheblocked his number. Prior to that also, he treated her with mental andphysical cruelty. On 18.09.2021, she lodged N.C. complaint against 8criappln No.3452 & 3453-2024him. Thereafter also, he was bothering her frequently by makingphone calls from different numbers. Because of Raju and his familymembers, in order to rescue from the clutches of the informant, theapplicants conspired to harass her and because of that, her earlierhusband was harassing her. If Raju would have produced before thecommittee of their community, he would have performed themarriage with her. But, his family members did not allow her tocontact Raju and deliberately concealed him and tried to mislead her.Raju has cheated many girls frequently and exploited them sexuallyand economically. He extracted four lakhs rupees from her and underthe false assurance of marriage, cheated her and committed rape onher frequently. Therefore, she lodged the report. 9.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. General and vagueallegations are made against the applicants. Though the specificincidents of cruelty is stated by the informant in the report and by thewitnesses in their statements, the fact of cruelty is not establishedfrom the entire charge-sheet against the applicants. False allegationsof cruelty are made against the applicants. The essential ingredientsof offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 509, 120(B),504 and 506 are not established against the applicants. If they are 9criappln No.3452 & 3453-2024compelled to face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of theprocess of the Court. It is lastly prayed to allow the applications.10.Learned APP and learned Advocate for respondent No.2strongly opposed the applications and submitted that there is strongevidence of cruelty against the applicants. Their names are mentionedin the F.I.R. The applicants treated the informant with cruelty bycheating with her and resisted the co-accused Raju to performmarraige with her. It is lastly prayed to reject the applications.11.We would like to rely on the decision of PramodSuryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, [2019(9)SCC 608], wherein it is observed that, "consent with respect toSection 375 of the Indian Penal Code involves an activeunderstanding of the circumstances, actions and consequences of theproposed act. An individual who makes a reasoned choice to act afterevaluating various alternative actions (or inaction) as well as thevarious possible consequences flowing from such action or inaction,consents to such action. The complainant and the appellant metregularly, travelled great distances to meet each other, resided in eachother's houses on multiple occasions, engaged in sexual intercourseregularly over a course of five years and on multiple occasions then itwas held that it cannot be said that acts fulfill or occurred offence 10criappln No.3452 & 3453-2024under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code punishable under Section376 of the Indian Penal Code was attracted. We are also taking noteof the decisions in Shambhau Kharwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,[2022 SCC Online SC 1032]. Of course this was differentiated on thefacts in Rajkumar Vs. State of Karnataka, [2024 SCC Online SC 257].However, the core is the same is that of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs.State of Maharashtra and Another (Supra).12.We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly the report,statements of witnesses and report of medical examination. Theapplicants are relatives of co-accused Raju, who assured to marry theinformant. He is not before this Court. The informant is 32 years oldpolice constable. The informant, in order to establish that she paidseveral amount to Raju, his parents and other relatives, nodocumentary evidence is collected to that effect. The role of theapplicants though stated by the informant in the report, it is notestablished by the independent corroborative material. It is a case ofconsensual relationship between the informant and co-accused Raju.There is no material to establish the cheating, abusing, intimidating,etc. against the applicants. The essential ingredients of Sections 420,509, 120(B), 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. are not established from theentire charge-sheet against the applicants. 11criappln No.3452 & 3453-202413.Considering all the aspects, above reasons and law laiddown in the authorities cited supra, if the applicants are compelled toface the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of the process of theCourt. We are, therefore, inclined to exercise our powers underSection 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the report and charge-sheet in theinterest of justice to prevent the abuse of the process of the Courtagainst the applicants. The applications deserve to be allowed. Hence,the following order.ORDERI)The applications stand allowed.II)The First Information Report and charge-sheet bearingNo.63 of 2022, arising out of Crime bearingNo.0169 of 2022, registered with Bhagya Nagar PoliceStation, Dist. Nanded, dated 16.05.2022, for theoffences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 420,509, 120(B), 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of TheIndian Penal Code, 1860quashed against the applicantsin both the applications. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd 12criappln No.3452 & 3453-2024[PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.I have gone through the order authored by learnedJustice Sanjay A. Deshmukh. I agree to the operative part of theorder, however, I want to add elaborate reasoning and therefore,present part of the order is added.2.The facts of the case are already narrated and therefore, Iam not reproducing the same. Perusal of the FIR would show that theallegations in respect of offence under Section 376(2)(n) of theIndian Penal Code are against accused No.1 Rajendra @ RajuManikrao Tilewad. He is not before this Court, but the applicants inboth the Applications are original accused Nos. 2 to 8 i.e. relatives ofaccused No.1 Raju and therefore, their role is then required to beconsidered in respect of other offences i.e. Sections 420, 509, 120-B,504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Neither the FIR nor the entiredocuments in the charge-sheet would show as to in respect of whatthe criminal conspiracy was hatched up. Whether it was in respect ofcheating or for outraging of modesty or criminal intimidation orinsult, is then required to be considered. However, taking intoconsideration the basic nature of the offences under Section 509, 504,506 of the Indian Penal Code, there cannot be a criminal conspiracy. 13criappln No.3452 & 3453-2024Interestingly, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has also beeninvoked. Section 120-B and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Codecannot go together.3.As regards Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code isconcerned, the informant states that she has spent amount on theeducation of Raju as well as his nephews and on the basis of say ofRaju she gave amount to the applicants, mortgaged her gold articlesand gave amount for agricultural land, had taken loan ofRs.1,00,000/- in her name for the construction of the house of Raju. Itappears that she would then connect it to Raju’s decision not to marryand then she says that it is cheating. In all these facts she has notstated at any point of time any of the applicants had requested her orforced her to spend money on them. What was the representationmade by them at that time and when she was yet to get divorce fromher husband why she should spent so much amount on Raju and hisfamily, is a question. The informant is not an ordinary rustic lady. Sheis police constable and for that purpose, should know the basic law/legal provisions. In spite of that if she was spending amount, then itwill have to be taken as voluntary. It cannot attract the ingredients ofSection 415 of the Indian Penal Code. 14criappln No.3452 & 3453-20244.In the FIR, informant states that applicant Vinod Tilewadhad abused her in filthy language on mobile phone, which amountedto outraging her modesty and thereupon it appears that Section 509of the Indian Penal Code has been added. Now the details of thephone call, that means the date on which she had received the phonecall, have not been stated. The CDR, SDR showing the said phone callis not annexed along with the charge-sheet. Except those words of theinformant then there is no supporting evidence. Offence underSection 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code are non-cognizable andtherefore, I am also of the opinion that the Application deserves to beallowed. Thus, here I agree to the operative part of the order, above. [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE asb/AUG25