Dnyaneshwar S/O Deoraoji Sable vs State of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Girad — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dnyaneshwar S/O Deoraoji Sable vs State of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Girad — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal application allowed: FIR in Crime No.359/2024 registered with Police Station Girad for offences under Sections 354-A, 376(1), 452 and 504 IPC and consequent proceedings RCC No.55/2025 pending before JMFC, Samudrapur quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant Dnyaneshwar s/o Deoraoji Sable; application stands disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.359/2024 registered with non-applicant No.1 police station and the consequent proceedings RCC No.55/2025 pending before learned JMFC, Samudrapur deserve to be quashed as against the applicant. +2 more

Court's answer

The FIR in connection with Crime No.359/2024 registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 354-A, 376(1), 452 and 504 IPC, and the consequent proceedings RCC No.55/2025 pending before learned JMFC, Samudrapur, are quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicant Dnyaneshwar s/o Deoraoji Sable; the application stands disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The complainant's contention that she did not lodge the complaint earlier because she was threatened by the applicant has no substance, since she was residing along with her husband and therefore had opportunity to disclose the said incident.

Key takeaways

After the alleged incident of 5.5.2023, the complainant met the applicant on 12.12.2024 and 23.12.2024 and still did not disclose the incident to anybody, the complaint being made only on 28.12.2024.ratio¶6
The complainant is admittedly a grown-up lady of 30 years who knows the consequences of her acts, and the possibility of her having a consensual relationship with the applicant is not ruled out.ratio¶7
Delay in lodging an FIR in a case of sexual assault is not always fatal to the prosecution but must be explained by giving reasonable cause; as the complainant has not given any reasonable explanation for the delay in FIR, the implication of the applicant due to some other reasons cannot be ruled out.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR - Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.), Criminal Application (APL) No.784 of 2025, decided 27-02-2026 (neutral citation 2026:BHC-NAG:3950-DB) - FIR in Crime No.359/2024, Police Station Girad (tahsil Samudrapur, district Wardha), under Sections 354-A, 376(1), 452 and 504 IPC, with consequent proceedings RCC No.55/2025 before JMFC, Samudrapur, quashed and set aside qua applicant Dnyaneshwar s/o Deoraoji Sable - Allegation of forcible sexual assault of 5.5.2023 by adjoining landholder; FIR lodged only on 28.12.2024, about one and a half years later, with no reasonable explanation for the delay - Complainant met applicant again on 12.12.2024 and 23.12.2024 without disclosing the incident; her plea that threats silenced her rejected as she resided with her husband and had opportunity to disclose - Complainant an admitted grown-up lady of 30 years who knows consequences of her acts; possibility of consensual relationship not ruled out - Legal position on consent and 'misconception of fact' noted from Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608 - Unexplained delay held to leave room for implication of the applicant due to other reasons; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed to the extent of the present applicant; application allowed and disposed of.

2026:BHC-NAG:3950-DB

Judgment

1

11 apl784.25

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

CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.784 OF 2025

Dnyaneshwar s/o Deoraoji Sable, aged about 44 years, occupation cultivator, r/o Pavangaon (Karur), tahsil Samudrapur, district Wardha. ….. Applicants.

:: V E R S U S ::

State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Girad, tahsil Samudrapur, district Wardha.

Priyanka Doma Bagne, aged about 30 years, occupation labour, r/o Pavangaon, Samudrapur, Girad, district Wardha. ….. Non-applicants . ================================ Shri S.O.Ahmed, Counsel for the Applicant. Shri A.M.Joshi, APP for NA No.1/State. Ms S.H.Bhatia, Counsel for NA No.2. ================================ CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATE : 27/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard. Admit . Heard finally by consent.

.....2/-

2

Judgment

11 apl784.25

By this application, the applicant is seeking quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.359/2024 registered with the non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 354-A, 376(1), 452, and 504 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.55/2025 pending on the file of learned JMFC, Samudrapur.

The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) on allegations that the applicant is resident of the same village and is having an agricultural land adjacent to the agricultural land of the complainant.

It is alleged by her that as they were visiting to each other’s houses, there was acquaintance. On 5.5.2023, the applicant had been to her house and nobody was in the house and he has subjected her for forceful sexual assault and threatened her that if she discloses the said incident to

.....3/-

11 apl784.25

3

Judgment

anybody, he would do something and her husband will be implicated in a false offence.

She further alleged that she has also handed over her mobile phone.

On the basis of the said report, the police have registered the crime against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the

FIR is lodged after one and half year of the said incident. There is no explanation as far as the delay is concerned.

He submitted that even accepting the allegation as it is, it is apparent that it is consensual physical relationship between both of them and investigation papers also do not disclose any prima facie offence against the applicant.

In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed and the FIR deserves to be quashed.

.....4/-

Judgment

11 apl784.25

4

Per contra, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that as the complainant was threatened by the applicant, she has not lodged the FIR regarding the said incident.

In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

On hearing both sides and perusing the entire investigation papers, it reveals that as per allegations of the complainant, the alleged incident of physical assault on her has taken place on 5.5.2023. Thereafter, the applicant met her on 12.12.2024 and thereafter on 23.12.20024. Thus, after the subsequent incident also, she has not disclosed the incident to anybody.

As far as her contention, that as she was threatened, she has not lodged complaint, has no substance. As she was residing along with her husband, there was opportunity to disclose the said incident to her husband. Admittedly, the complainant is a grown up lady of 30 years and knows

.....5/-

Judgment

11 apl784.25

5

consequences of her act. The possibility of having consensual relationship is also not ruled out.

This aspect is considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the celebrated judgment in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and anr, reported in (2019)9

SCC 608. The Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering catena of decisions, held that, “to summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the “consent” of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising

out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act”.

.....6/-

Judgment

11 apl784.25

6

The allegations in the FIR indicate that the alleged incident has taken place on 5.5.2023. Thereafter, there was meeting between the applicant and the complainant on 12.12.2024 and 23.12.2024. Thereafter, also, she has not made any complaint about this incident. On 28.12.2024, she made the complaint about the said incident.

Admittedly, the delay in FIR is not always fatal to the prosecution as far as sexual assault is concerned, but delay in lodging FIR is to be explained by giving reasonable cause. As in the present case, the complainant has not given any reasonable explanation to the delay in FIR, the implication of the applicant due to some other reasons cannot be ruled out.

In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(1) The criminal application is allowed .

.....7/-

11 apl784.25

7

Judgment

(2) FIR in connection with Crime No.359/2024 registered with the non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 354-A, 376(1), 452, and 504 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.55/2025 pending on the file of learned JMFC, Samudrapur are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of present applicant Dnyaneshwar s/o Deoraoji Sable.

Application stands disposed of .

( URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. )

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 10/03/2026 11:03:11

...../-