Allowed

Akash Shankar Bembare and 2 Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Pso Gittikhadan Nagpur City

Bombay HC12 Nov 2024APL/1030/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of an FIR alleging rape and related offences against the informant. The parties had married after settlement, and the major informant affirmed before the Court that she did not wish to prosecute. The High Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.498 of 2024 registered at Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur City quashed and set aside.

Akash Shankar Bembare and 2 Others Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 22.apl.1030.2024

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1030 OF 2024

¶4

Akash Shankar Bembare and ors.

¶5

..vs..

¶6

State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶7

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs S. Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri A.D. Ramteke, Advocate for non-applicant no.2.

¶11

CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATED : 12/11/2024.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

This is an application seeking to quash the First Information Report no.498 of 2024 registered at Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur City for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 504, 506, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on account of mutual settlement.

¶14

The informant lady aged 28 years has lodged the report alleging the offence of rape. The facts in brief are that in the year 2015 both got acquainted with each other. Later, they decided to marry and accordingly, engagement ceremony was also held. However, thereafter there were some differences due to which marriage was not materialized. In the meantime, they had sexual relations, therefore, the informant has lodged the report.

¶15

In the meantime, the parties have settled the internal differences as well as got married. The informant has filed an affidavit stating that their marriage was performed on 30.09.2024 and she is happily staying with her husband i.e. the applicant. The marriage registration certificate has also been tendered on record.

¶16

2 22.apl.1030.2024

¶17

Both are presently staying at Bengaluru as husband and wife. The learned Counsel for the informant is present before us. The informant has appeared through video call from Bengaluru. The learned Counsel for the informant has identified her. Since there were technical glitches as the audio is not clear, we have interacted with the informant around 11.50 a.m. through video call made from the mobile of learned Counsel for the applicant Shri Dhawas bearing mobile No.8275396607. She has specifically stated that the matter is settled, she got married with the applicant and thus, do not want to prosecute the criminal case.

¶18

It reveals that the informant is a major lady aged 28 years. Already the engagement ceremony was held, however out of differences the marriage was earlier not materialized resulting into filing of the report. It is apparent that, later on, couple got married on 30.09.2024 and residing happily. Obviously, continuation of prosecution would become hurdle in their matrimonial life. Well being of the informant lady is the major consideration for us. Keeping in mind the peculiarity of the case, we are inclined to exercise our inherent jurisdiction.

¶19

In view of the above, the criminal application is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the First Information Report no.498 of 2024 registered at Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur City for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 504, 506, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

Trupti

Akash Shankar Bembare and 2 Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Pso Gittikhadan Nagpur City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Shankar Bembare and 2 Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Pso Gittikhadan Nagpur City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant S/O Arjun Chamke Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Jaripatka Nagpur

Manish S/O Ratanlal Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary Home Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai and Another

Prakash Sahebrao Kolhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Mankapur Dist. Nagpur

Sadguru Bahuuddeshiya Yuwak Mandal Amravati Thorugh Presdent Shri Prabhat S/O Shamlal Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai and 1

Tejrao Namdeorao Ingle Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Home Dep. Mantralaya Mumbai and 2 Others

Ziaullah Khana Son of Jailani Khan and 5 Other Vs the State of Maharashtra P.S.O. Nandura Dist. Buldhana and Another