Allowed

Vikram Ramchandra Yadav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2016APL/1476/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed quashing of a criminal complaint filed under Sections 376 and 504 IPC regarding false promise of marriage and sexual relations. The court noted the parties intended to marry and applied Gian Singh to grant quashing and release the jail-restricted petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Criminal complaint quashed; Applicant No. 1 ordered to be released forthwith from jail.

Vikram Ramchandra Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

APL. 1476-16

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1476 OF 2016

¶5

Shri Vikram Ramchandra Yadav & Ors.… Petitioners Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Dilip B. Shinde, for the Petitioners. Dr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent No. 1-State. Mr. Sachin Hande, for Respondent No. 2.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 21, 2016

¶11

PC.

¶12

This is a criminal application filed by the Applicants for quashing the criminal complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 504 a/w 34 of IPC. Respondent No. 2 has filed a criminal complaint in which she has alleged that the Applicant No. 1 had given a false promise of marriage to her, and thereafter had kept sexual relations with her. It did happen in 2005 and since then Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 were having physical relations. It is submitted that when the Applicant No. 1 has refused to marry her, she filed the present complaint. She

¶13

1 / 2

¶14

APL. 1476-16

¶15

has now filed an affidavit in reply stating therein that the Applicant No.1 has now agreed to marry with her, and therefore, she wants to withdraw the complaint. Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court. We have interviewed her. She has stated that she has no objection if the complaint is quashed.

¶16

In our view, the facts clearly disclose that even otherwise no offence, as alleged, has been made out against the applicants. Moreover, affidavit in reply filed by the complainant reveals that since 2005 she was in physical relations with the Applicant No. 1. Both of them have now decided to get married. In our view, therefore, on account of the aforesaid facts that the Applicant No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2 want to get themselves married, there is no impediment in quashing the criminal complaint filed by her. The ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh, Appellant Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., Respondents [(2012) 10 SCC 303] will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The Applicant No. 1 is in jail at the moment. He be released forthwith. Criminal application is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶17

. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶18

Sd/Sd/[Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶19

Vinayak Halemath

¶20

2 / 2

Vikram Ramchandra Yadav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Ramchandra Yadav and Ors. 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

Vivek Mahadev Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shrinivasan Venkatramani Iyer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Sahdev Suryawanshi Vs Pooja Sagar Suryawanshi and Anr.

Mahatma Laxmanji Arya Education Public Charitable Trust, Panchgani Vs Bombay Environment Action Group and Anr.

Niraj Kajaria Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.