Allowed

Manteshwar Hanumantrao Kattimani v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2016APL/1419/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for quashing a criminal complaint alleging breach of promise to marry and seduction. The court observed that the complainant filed the police complaint due to insecurity and depression. Hearing both parties, the court found the offense was registered when the complainant was confused and held the averments did not constitute an offense under Section 376 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed and complaint quashed in terms of prayer clause (b).

Manteshwar Hanumantrao Kattimani Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2016)

1/2

APL 1419 of 2016

Vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1419 OF 2016

¶7

Mr. Manteshwar Hanumantrao Kattimani Vs.

¶8

...Applicant

¶9

State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

¶10

¶11

Mr. Priyal G. Sarda for the Applicant Mr. Pravin Padave for Respondent No.2 Dr. F.R. Shaikh -APP for Respondent -State

¶12

¶13

CORAM : V. M. KANADE &

¶14

Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

¶15

DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2016

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

This is an application filed by the Applicant for quashing a criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.2- Original Complainant for the offence punishable under sections 376, 323, 504, 500, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the Applicant since according to her, the Applicant had promised to marry her and, therefore, she had given her consent to have a physical relation with him. However, later on he had rescinded from the said promise. The Applicant is a widower and Respondent No.2 is also a widow and

¶19

2/2

¶20

APL 1419 of 2016

¶21

Respondent No.2 has now filed an affidavit stating therein that she was feeling insecure and, therefore, she was under depression, and under these circumstances, she had filed the complaint with the police. In the reply, she has further stated that she has no objection if the complaint is quashed.

¶22

Both the parties are present in the Court. We have interviewed her and Respondent No.1- Original Complainant has stated that she has no objection if the complaint is quashed. We are satisfied that though the offence which was initially registered as an offence punishable under section 376, it appears that the said offence was registered by the police when Respondent No.2 was in a confused state of mind. In view of the reply filed by Respondent No.2 in this application, it is obvious that the averments made in the complaint would not constitute an offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC.

¶23

The ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh V. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 will squarely apply to the present case. The Criminal Application, therefore, is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and is disposed of.

¶24

Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.

¶25

V.M. KANADE, J.

¶26

Vaishali Tikam

Manteshwar Hanumantrao Kattimani v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manteshwar Hanumantrao Kattimani v. 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

Dejul Manilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jasdeep Singh Khurana and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harminder Balbir Singh Saini and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manteshwar Hanumantrao Kattimani Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Panjabrao Vasantrao Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Karamatullah Rahmatullah Khan Alias Raju Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.