Allowed

Siddhu @ Siddharam Kashinath Fulari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Oct 2010APPLN/4521/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed an application quashing a criminal complaint under Section 376 IPC regarding statutory rape. Despite the minor status of the prosecutrix, the court accepted an amicable settlement and affidavits agreeing to marriage, quashing the FIR and related proceedings to save judicial time.

What did the court decide?

FIR (C.R. No. 86 of 2010) and related Sessions Case No. 261 of 2010 quashed.

Siddhu @ Siddharam Kashinath Fulari Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

cr appln 452110.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4521 OF 2010

¶5

Siddhu @ Siddharam Kashinath Fulari.. Applicant
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Anr... Respondent

¶6

Mr. P.G. Sarda for the Applicant

¶7

Mr. V.V. Purvant for Respondent No. 2

¶8

Ms. A.A. Mane, APP for the State

¶9

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J

¶10

DATE : 14th OCTOBER, 2010.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶13

2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant-original

¶14

accused and learned advocate for respondent no. 2-original
complainant. As respondent no. 2 is minor, she is
represented by her father and natural guardian Mr. Rama
Krishna Koli.

¶15

3.The applicant is seeking quashing of C.R. No. 86 of
2010 of Vijapur Naka Police Station, Dist. Solapur and the
proceedings relating thereto being Sessions Case No. 261 of
2010 which is pending before the Sessions Court, Solapur.

¶16

¶17

cr appln 452110.doc

¶18

The said case is under Section 376 of IPC.

¶19

4. The prosecution case is that the applicant committed rape on the prosecutrix Laxmi.

¶20

5.The learned advocate for the respondent no.2 states
that the matter has been amicably settled between the partie,
hence, the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto be
quashed. The parents of the Laxmi are present before this
Court. They have stated that Laxmi and the applicant were
having love affair. Due to the said incident, Laxmi had
conceived and she delivered a baby boy on 30th September
2010. Parents of the applicant are also present before this
Court and they have stated that they will get their son
married to the prosecutrix as soon as she attains majority.
The Parents of Laxmi and the applicant have stated that it is
agreed that Laxmi and the applicant would marry each other
after Laxmi attains the age of maturity. Hence, they have
requested to quash the FIR and proceedings relating thereto.
The father of Laxmi has also filed affidavit stating therein
that he has no objection to quash the FIR and proceedings
relating thereto. His affidavits are taken on record and
marked "X" for identification.

¶21

6. Father of Laxmi stated that if FIR and the proceedings

¶22

¶23

cr appln 452110.doc

¶24

relating thereto are not quashed, the applicant would remain
in jail and in such case, it would not be possible for Laxmi
and the applicant to get married as soon as she attains
majority, due to this, Laxmi and baby boy would also suffer
great hardship, hence, he requested to quash the FIR and
proceedings relating thereto.

¶25

7.I have perused the FIR lodged by Laxmi. In the FIR,
nowhere, she has stated that intercourse which took place
between her and the applicant was forcible in nature or
against her will or without her consent. However, the fact
remains that Laxmi was minor at the time of the incident,
hence, it is a case of statutory rape and would be covered
under Section 376 of IPC.

¶26

8.In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, it
isobserved as follows:

¶27

"We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable
that in disputes where the question involved is of
a purely personal nature, the Court should
ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even
in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive
with no possibility of a result in favour of the
prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly

¶28

¶29

cr appln 452110.doc

¶30

over burdened as they are, cannot afford and that
the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more
effective and meaningful litigation. This is a
common sense approach to the matter based on ground
of realities and bereft of the technicalities of
the law".

¶31

9In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State
of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. reported in 1977
Cr.L.J. 1125the Supreme Court referred to Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. and observed that in exercise of the wholesome power,
the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes
to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the
ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The Supreme Court further observed that this power
is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is
that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

¶32

10.The ratio of above decisions squarely applies to the
present case. In view of the above decisions, in my opinion,
there is no reason as to why the criminal complaint filed by
respondent no. 2-original complainant should not be quashed.
Thus, in view of above decisions and in view of the amicable

¶33

¶34

cr appln 452110.doc

¶35

settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the
FIR and proceedings relating thereto. Hence, Criminal
Application is allowed.

¶36

11 Thus, in view of the above decisions, in view of amicable settlement between the parties and the affidavits filed before this Court, I am inclined to quash the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto.

¶37

12.C.R. No. 86 of 2010 of Vijapur Naka Police Station,
Solapur and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. Sessions
Case No. 261 of 2010 pending before the Sessions Court,
Solapur is quashed.

¶38

13. Application is disposed of.

¶39

¶40

cr appln 452110.doc

¶41

Siddhu @ Siddharam Kashinath Fulari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddhu @ Siddharam Kashinath Fulari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aalia Akbar Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mohan Krishnant Khade

Aalia Akbar Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Samadhan Navnath Chandankar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samadhan Navnath Chandankar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Jairam Keni Vs Dy. Commissioner of Police and Ors.