1
apl230.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Application (APL) No.230 of 2018
1. Nilesh s/o Maruti Dhumal,
Aged about 27 years,
Occupation – Agriculturist/Job,
R/o Kedhaon, Tq. Daund,
Distt. Pune.
2. Ku. Pooja d/o Milind Dongre,
Aged about 17 years,
Occupation – Student,
being minor, through her natural
guardian mother
Smt. Chanda Milind Dongre,
Aged 50 years,
Occupation – Agril.
Both R/o Kavata Sopinath,
Tq. Murtizapur, Distt. Akola. … Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Murtizapur (City),
Police Station, Distt. Akola. … Respondent
Shri S.A. Mohta, Advocate for Applicants.
Shri A. Chutke, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande Arun D. Upadhye, JJ.
th
Dated : 17 September, 2018
::: Uploaded on – 18/09/2018 19/09/2018 01:33:11 :::
2
apl230.18.odt
Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the parties.
2. This is the joint application filed by the accused Nilesh
and the victim/prosecutrix Ku. Pooja for quashing the FIR
registered vide Crime No.351 of 2017 on 16-11-2017 against the
applicant No.1 Nilesh for the offences punishable under
Sections 376(2)(i)(n), 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code
read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. On 15-3-2018, this Court had passed an order as under :
” By this criminal application, the applicants seek the
quashing of the first information report registered against
the applicant no.1 on the basis of a complaint lodged by the
applicant no.2.
::: Uploaded on – 18/09/2018 19/09/2018 01:33:11 :::
3
apl230.18.odt
In the complaint lodged by the applicant no.2, it is
alleged that the applicant no.1 had on the false promise of
marrying her entered into sexual relationship with her. It is
alleged in the complaint that the applicant no.1 has refused
to marry the applicant no.2 after indulging in physical
relationship. On the basis of the said report, the first
information report was registered against the applicant
no.1.
The applicant nos.1 and 2 have jointly filed this
criminal application. The mother of the applicant no.2 has
also filed the affidavit in support of the application. It is
stated on behalf of the applicant that the applicant nos.1
and 2 are desirous of getting married and they are
prevented to do so as the applicant no.2 is a little below
18 years of age and would attain the age of majority on
3-4-2018. It is stated that the applicants have decided to
marry after the applicant no.2 attains the age of majority.
Issue notice to the non-applicant. The notice is made
returnable after six months, at the request of the learned
counsel for the applicants.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari waives notice on behalf of the::: Uploaded on – 18/09/2018 19/09/2018 01:33:11 :::
4
apl230.18.odtnon-applicant- State.
The chargesheet should not be filed in the
meanwhile.”
4. The applicant No.2 Ku. Pooja, who is personally present
before us, completed the age of 18 years on 3-4-2018. She
informs us to have married with the applicant No.1 Nilesh and
the marriage registration certificate dated 15-9-2018 is produced
before us. She submits that both of them are leading a peaceful
marital life and she does not want to continue the prosecution
against the applicant No.1 Nilesh.
5. Before us, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors.
v. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, is
relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants, which lays
down the guidelines for exercising the power under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR or the
criminal prosecution for various offences. The guideline No.(v)
::: Uploaded on – 18/09/2018 19/09/2018 01:33:11 :::
5
apl230.18.odt
in the said decision states that the decision as to whether the
complaint or the FIR should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and the victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
6. No doubt, that the allegations of rape, particularly those
under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences act, 2012, are of serious nature, but keeping in view the
factual position appearing in the present matter, namely that the
applicant No.1 has married with the applicant No.2 and the
applicant No.2 has decided to lead a peaceful marital life with
the applicant No.1, we do not find that any fruitful purpose will
be served in continuing the prosecution against the applicant
No.1.
7. In the result, this criminal application is allowed. The FIR
registered vide Crime No.351 of 2017 on 16-11-2017 against the
applicant No.1, at the instance of the applicant No.2, for the
::: Uploaded on – 18/09/2018 19/09/2018 01:33:11 :::
6
apl230.18.odt
offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n), 323 and 504 of
the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at
Police Station Murtizapur, District Akola, is hereby quashed and
set aside.
(Arun D. Upadhye, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)
Lanjewar. PS
::: Uploaded on – 18/09/2018 19/09/2018 01:33:11 :::
