Libertatem Magazine

Bombay HC Sets Aside Criminal Liability Saying that There Was No Intention of Marriage From Inception

Contents of this Page

The application filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C challenged the veracity and validity of the FIR lodged on 23.03.2014 at the police station, with the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse on the part of Applicant No.1, alleged by non-Applicant No.4. The Court adjudicated this contention, in the matter of Amol S/o Vinayak Wankhede & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Brief Facts

The FIR was registered alleging that the Applicant had committed a forcible sexual offence with on-Applicant no.4 named Yogita Devidasrao Khandekar. Subsequently, all other co-accused also threatened and coerced non-applicant no.4 that if she tried to register any criminal charge against offence committed by Applicant no.1, they would indulge her into a false case.

It was alleged in the FIR that Applicant no.1 and non-Applicant no.4 were in a relationship since 2010. The first incident took place in December 2012 and the second, in 2014, wherein he had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Based on the report, it was alleged that Applicant No.1 misrepresented the fact that he has been selected for a government job and tried to sexually assault her from time to time.

Applicant’s Arguments

The Counsel for the Applicant challenged the FIR by presenting the criminal application under section 482 of Cr. P.C. On 2.11.2020, the Counsel remained absent for the criminal proceeding 

Non-Applicant’s/ Respondent’s Arguments

Non-applicants 1 to 3 asserted that, on 16.04.2014, forcible sexual intercourse was committed by the Applicant and therefore, all ingredients of the offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 506 and 34 of the IPC were fulfilled. There was also a trace of facts on the FIR that non-Applicant No.4 had visited the residence of Applicant No.1 on 24.06.2014 when the investigation officers had recorded the statement of four neighbours residing nearby his house at Nashik. Therefore, based on the allegation mentioned in FIR, the Applicant’s application ought to be entitled to be dismissed.

Court’s Observation

The Court granted ad-interim protection in favour of the Applicant on 07.4.2014 wherein it instructed authorities not to take coercive action or any other misconduct upon the Applicant. The Court continued to grant interim protection. 

When the matter was listed on 2.11.2020, neither the Applicant’s counsel nor non-Applicant’s counsel were present. Therefore, the Court vacated the interim order passed on 07.04.2014 which was also continued on 28.11.2014.

Court’s Decision

The court stated that there was the intention of the Applicant to get married to non-Applicant no.4 from the inception of their relationship. This was evaluated and confirmed under the averments of FIR. The allegation upon other Co-accused (namely Accused no.2 to 6) was deemed to be unsatisfactory. Thus, the Court held that they ought not to be charged for offences alleged in the FIR.

Therefore, the allegations of sexual offences and others deserved to be quashed and set aside. In effect, the FIR registered on 23.03.2014 with the police station with the different offences were quashed and set aside.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE JUDGMENT is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now. 

About the Author