Allowed

Nitin S/O Dilip Rao Chandangir v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Hudkeshwar Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC6 Nov 2023APL/968/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed Special Case No. 38/2016 arising from a complaint of rape. Finding no prima facie case as the relationship was consensual, victim was aware of applicant's married status, and the case met criteria in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal. Quashed additionally due to settlement.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside Special Case No. 38/2016 pending in Additional Special Court Atrocity and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

Nitin S/O Dilip Rao Chandangir Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-NAG:16254-DB

Judgment

33 apl 968.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 968/2023

¶7

Nitin s/o. Dilip Rao Chandangir,
Aged about 44 yrs., Occ. Architect,
R/o. Old Gyaneshwar Nagar, Manewada
Road, behind Kudrat Pan Mandir, Nagpur.

¶8

... APPLICANTS

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1. The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Hudkeshwar Nagpur.

¶11

2. X.Y.Z. Crime No.407/16, P.S.O. Hudkeshwar, Nagpur.

¶12

...NON-APPLICANTS

¶13

Mr. Sk. Sabahat Ullah, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. A.B. Bader, APP for non-applicant No.1.
Mr. A.J. Mirza, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.

¶14

 CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND

¶15

 M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
 DATE: 06.11.2023.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

¶17

Heard.

¶18

2.Admit.

Judgment

33 apl 968.23

3.This is an application seeking to quash Special Case No.
38/2016 arising out of Crime No. 407/2016 registered with the
Police Station Hudkeshwar, Nagpur for the offence punishable under
Sections 376(2)(n), 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1),
12, 3(2), 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act on merits as well as on settlement.

¶23

4.At the instance of report, lodged by young girl aged 21
years, crime has been registered. It is the prosecution case that in
the year 2013, the victim girl got acquainted with the accused and
started to work on salary as his assistant. The victim was aware that
the applicant was married fellow. In the month of February 2013,
the applicant proposed her for marriage, however she refused as the
applicant was already married. However, they continued to work
together. Once the applicant took victim for outing and had sexual
intercourse by giving promise to marry. The things were repeated for
long period of three years. Finally, the applicant refused to marry.
Therefore, the report.

Judgment

33 apl 968.23

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit

¶28

that the prosecution even if accepted at its face value, it does not
make out an offence of rape. It is submitted that the victim was
major and at the most, it is a case of consensual relation. Learned
counsel appearing for applicant took us through the statement of
victim, where she herself has stated about applicant’s marital status
and her love relation.

¶29

6.We have examined the police papers. It reveals that the
victim was major from the date when the relation started. The
victim’s own statement discloses that she was aware about the
marital status of the applicant. The statement of victim also conveys
that both were in relationship out of intimacy. They had
longstanding sexual relation on several time.

¶30

7.Applying the law laid down in the cases of Pramod Pawar
Vs. State of Maharashtra2019(9) SCC 608 and Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar vs State Of Maharashtra, 2019 AIR (SC) 327, we
have re-examined the facts. Apparently, both were young and in
relationship for three to four years. Particularly, the victim was

Judgment

33 apl 968.23

aware about the marital status of the applicant. There is no material
to infer that only on account of false promise, she has surrendered
herself. The prosecution case even if accepted, it does not constitute
a prima facie case. The case squarely falls in Criteria Nos. 1 and 3 to
Para 108 of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.

¶35

8.Besides that, the informant lady has settled the dispute
and filed reply stating that out of misconception, she has lodged
report. She has appeared through her Advocate Mr.A.J. Mirza and
stated about settlement. Apart from the settlement, we have
assessed the case on merits, and satisfied that the allegation does not
constitute a prima facie offence of rape. In the circumstances,
continuation of the prosecution amounts to abuse of the process of
the Court. Though charge-sheet has been filed, it is informed that
yet charges have not been framed.

¶36

9.In view of above, we are inclined to invoke our
extraordinary jurisdiction. Application is allowed. We hereby quash
and set aside the Special Case No. 38/2016 pending on the file of

¶37

Judgment 33 apl 968.23

¶38

Additional Special Court Atrocity i.e. District Court – 9 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur arising out of Crime
No. 407/2016 registered with the Police Station Hudkeshwar,
Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1), 12, 3(2), 5 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
on merits as well as on settlement.

¶39

10. Application stands dispose of in above terms.

¶40

(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶41

Gohane

Nitin S/O Dilip Rao Chandangir v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Hudkeshwar Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin S/O Dilip Rao Chandangir v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Hudkeshwar Nagpur and Another

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

Raju @ Bhikku S/O. Rambhau Parchake and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Imamvada Ps, Nagpur and Another.

Umesh S/O Ganeshrao Kale Vs State of Mah. Thr. Ps Arvi Dist.Wardha

Chandrakant S/O. Gopalrao Kumbhare and Another. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps, Lakadganj, Nagpur Dist. Nagpur.

Niranjan S/O. Raosaheb Nirmal and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur - 440010 and Another

Mohammad Hasan S/O Mohammad Bashir and Another Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Juni Kamptee Dist. Nagpur and Another.

Kailash Devideen Japsare Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Police Station Officer, Police Station Akot, Dist. Akola and Anr.