Shubhangi Ramdas Mate @ Shubhangi Shankar Tavare vs Deepak Shivaji Bidkar and Ors.

¶1

025:BHC-AS:1-DB

¶2

cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc

¶3

DDR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4906 OF 2021

¶6

Mr. Deepak Shivaji Bidkar ) Age – 42 years, Occ : Service, ) R/at – Sakore Tal. - Ambegaon, ) Dist. - Pune ) 2. Mr. Chandrashekhar Dattatray Hule ) Age-51 years, Occ : Secretary, ) R/at-Borivali, Dahisar, Borivali, Mumbai. ) 3. Sau. Sangeeta Chandrashekhar Hule ) Age-48 years, Occu : ) R/at- Borivali, Dahisar, Borivali, Mumbai ) ...Petitioners Vs. 1. The State Of Maharashtra ) Through P.S.I. Godegaon Police Station, ) Dist. - Pune (Notice to be served on the ) A.P.P. High Court Mumbai.) ) 2. Mrs. Shubhangi Ramdas Mate @ ) Shubhangi Shankar Tavare ) R/at-In front of Tahsil office, Sanskar ) Laxmi prestige, “C” Wing, Room No.102, ) Ghoegaon Tal – Ambegaon, Dist.-Pune. ) ...Respondents

¶7

1/9

¶8

DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc

¶9

WITH

¶10

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 967 OF 2024

¶11

IN

¶12

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4906 OF 2021

¶13

Mrs. Shubhangi Ramdas Mate @	)
Shubhangi Shankar Tavare	)
Age – 43 years, Occ. - Service,	)
R/at-In front of Tahsil office, Sanskar	)
Laxmi prestige, “C” Wing, Room No.102,	)
Ghoegaon Tal – Ambegaon, Dist.-Pune. (Ori.	) Resp	...Applicant ondent No.2/C
In the matter between
1. Mr. Deepak Shivaji Bidkar	)
Age – 42 years, Occ : Service,	)
R/at – Sakore Tal. - Ambegaon,	)
Dist. - Pune	)
2. Mr. Chandrashekhar Dattatray Hule	)
Age-51 years, Occ – Secretary,	)
R/at-Borivali, Dahisar, Borivali, Mumbai.	)
3. Sau. Sangeeta Chandrashekhar Hule	)
Age-48 years, Occu-	)
R/at- Borivali, Dahisar, Borivali, Mumbai Vs.	)	...Petitioners
1. The State Of Maharashtra	)
Through P.S.I. Godegaon Police Station,	)
Dist. - Pune (Notice to be served on the	)
A.P.P. High Court Mumbai.)	)

¶14

(Ori. Respondent No.2/Complainant)

¶15

2/9

¶16

DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc

¶17

2. Mrs. Shubhangi Ramdas Mate @	)
Shubhangi Shankar Tavare	)
R/at-In front of Tahsil office, Sanskar	)
Laxmi prestige, “C” Wing, Room No.102,	)
Ghoegaon Tal – Ambegaon, Dist.-Pune.	)	...Respondents

¶18

Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode a/w. Ms. Sheetal M. Ubale, for Petitioners. Smt. Anamika Malhotra, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Uday B. Nighot, for respondent no.2.

¶19

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. RESERVED ON : 9^th June 2025. PRONOUNCED ON : 17^th July 2025.

¶20

JUDGMENT ( Per : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) :-

¶21

Present Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of Sessions Case No. 20 of 2022, pending before the 4^th District and Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, Pune, arising out of C. R.No. 90/2021 dated 12^th April 2021 registered with Ghodegaon Police Station (Pune Rural) for an offence punishable under Section 376, 376(2)(n), 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Present Petition was admitted by an Order dated 8^th August 2023 and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b)(i) was granted.

¶23

3/9

¶24

DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc

¶25

Pursuant to which there was stay to the proceedings of Sessions Case No.20 of 2022 pending before the 4^th District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, Pune.

¶26

It is alleged in the First Information Report (FIR) by the informant that, she was working in S. M. Joshi Residential School, Naroli, so also, her husband was working as a teacher in the said school. In the year 2011, Petitioner No.1 was Headmaster of the School. On 20^th April 2011, though it was a public holiday, yet Petitioner No.1 called informant to school, under a false pretext. As informant went to the school, Petitioner No.1 took her to a room in the school and committed rape on her. It is further alleged that, Petitioner No.1 threatened informant that, since he was the Headmaster, he would remove informant from the employment of the School. It is also alleged that, after the said incident, Petitioner No.1 repeatedly committed rape on informant. The FIR further mentions that, the informant narrated this fact to her husband. In turn, the husband of informant informed the Management of the school about the offence committed by the Headmaster.

¶27

3.1) The husband of informant was warned by the school that, he should not inform the police. The informant and her husband were threatened that, if they lodged any complaint, they would be removed from their services. The FIR further mentions that, the co-accused/Petitioner No.2, had also committed rape on informant from the year 2015 onwards

¶28

4/9

¶29

DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc

¶30

till the year 2020. It is further alleged that, in fact Petitioner No.3, who is the wife of Petitioner No.2 had also helped Petitioner No.2 in committing the said offence.

¶31

By an Order dated 11^th June 2021, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the pre-arrest bail application of Petitioner No.1 and by an Order dated 18^th June 2021 had allowed the pre-arrest bail application of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

¶32

It is the case of Petitioners that, the alleged offence as mentioned by informant as regards Petitioner No.1 could not be imagined to have happened since it was not a holiday on 20^th April 2011. Further, in a Residential School, there are always students and staff present in the school premises. The husband of informant had taken up a loan from a Credit Society, to which Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were the Guarantors. In order to avoid payment of the loan, a false FIR has been lodged by informant against Petitioners. The informant’s husband had executed an Agreement dated 17^th August 2020, wherein he accepted to make payment to Petitioner No.2. The witness to the said Agreement was Petitioner No.1. However, the cheque issued by the husband of informant was dishonored on presentation. Petitioner No.2 had issued a Notice dated 6^th April 2021, as regards dishonor of cheque. Only thereafter, on 12^th April 2021, the FIR had been lodged, belatedly for alleged offences of the year 2011 and 2015.

¶33

Learned APP and learned Advocate appearing for informant

¶34

5/9

¶35

DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc

¶36

opposed the Petition. It is vehemently submitted, based on the allegations made in the FIR, evidence has to be led and without leading evidence only on the basis of statements, the FIR cannot be quashed.

¶37

We have heard the submissions of learned Advocates appearing before us and have gone through the documents on record.

¶38

7.1) The FIR has been lodged on 12^th April 2021 for an offence alleged to have been committed as regards Petitioner No.1 on 20^th April 2011 and as regards Petitioner No.2, from 2015 onwards till 2020. It appears that no steps were taken for a long period by the informant to lodge crime immediately or within reasonable period and there is a huge unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.

¶39

7.2) The fact remains that, the husband of informant had taken loan from a Credit Society, wherein Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were Guarantors. There was default in payment of the loan amount and subsequently, there was an agreement executed by informant’s husband wherein he accepted that, he would make payment to Petitioner No.2. The cheques amounting to Rs.5,80,000/- issued in this regard, by the husband of informant were dishonored and a Notice dated 6^th April 2021 was issued by Petitioner No.2’s Advocate. Immediately, thereafter FIR has been lodged on 12^th April 2021. Therefore, we find that there is force in the submissions of Petitioners that, the FIR was nothing but the counterblast to the cheque dishonour Notice issued by Petitioner No.2.

¶40

6/9

¶41

DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc

¶42

7.3) The informant’s allegation as regards to Petitioner No.1 calling her on a public holiday to the school and committing rape on her, appears to be a palpable lie, since the date mentioned in the FIR i.e. 20^th April 2011, was not a holiday and the school being a residential school, it is difficult to believe that Petitioner No.1 committed rape when students and staff were present within the school premises.

¶43

7.4) Surprisingly, in the FIR the wife of Petitioner No.2 i.e. Petitioner No.3, has been mentioned as a person who has supported Petitioner No.2 in the alleged offence committed under Sections 376, 376(2) (n), 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. From perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet, in our opinion, it cannot be said that any of the requirements of Section 376, 376 (2) (n), 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against Petitioners/Accused persons. Except bald statement that the Accused have committed the offence, there is not even iota of material to substantiate the basic allegation. The allegations in the FIR appears to us, to be totally improbable.

¶44

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 in paragraph No.102 has given category of cases wherein the extraordinary powers of the Courts under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. In our view, the Ground Nos.5 and 7 of paragraph No.102,

¶45

7/9

¶46

DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc

¶47

would be applicable to the present proceedings. The said Ground No.5 and

¶48

Ground No.7 reads as under:-

¶49

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶50

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶51

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Abhishek versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2023) 16 SCC 666, the Supreme Court followed the decision of Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) and held that, it was not enough for the Court to look into the averment made in the FIR alone, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments made and if need be with due care and circumspection to try and read between the lines.

¶52

Taking into consideration the allegations made in the FIR, we don’t find sufficient grounds and/or reasons for proceeding against Petitioners. The fact that the husband of informant had defaulted the loan of Credit Society, for which Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were guarantors, we are of the view that after the cheques issued by the husband of informant were

¶53

8/9

¶54

DDR cri.wp 4906-21 with ia.doc

¶55

bounced, the FIR was lodged, only out of retaliation, for an alleged offence committed 10 years ago. It is also pertinent to note that Petitioner No.3 is wife of Petitioner No.2 and she has also been charged with offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) read with 34 of the IPC for having helped her husband to commit the crime. In the entire FIR, nothing is stated as to why Petitioner No.3 allegedly helped her husband to commit the crime for around five years ago and the FIR being lodged after much delay. We are therefore satisfied that the prosecution has not made out any case against Petitioners for any of the alleged offences.

¶56

We find merits in this Petition, hence the same stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), a(i) and a(ii).

¶57

11.1) The FIR No.90 of 2021, R.C.C. No.203/2021 and Sessions Case No.20 of 2022 pending before the 4^th District Judge-II & Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, Pune, stands quashed.

¶58

In sequel, the pending Interim Application No.967 of 2024 is also disposed off.

¶59

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶60

9/9

¶61

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 17/07/2025 21:18:18

Shubhangi Ramdas Mate @ Shubhangi Shankar Tavare v. Deepak Shivaji Bidkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubhangi Ramdas Mate @ Shubhangi Shankar Tavare v. Deepak Shivaji Bidkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul Munnalal Maurya vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suresh Uttam Kakade and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Raghav Jitendra Lakhotiya vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aniket Sanjay vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Reshma Suryakant Gole and Anr. vs Vijay Dhanajay Jathar and Anr.

Ajit Dashrath Rokade and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.