Bombay High Court
Shamkumar Devanand Purbhe And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 25 August, 2025
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
2025:BHC-AUG:23069-DB
1 Judgment in Cri.WP 1147-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1147 OF 2023
1. Shamkumar s/o Devanand Purbhe,
Age : 37 years, Occu.: Labour work,
R/o.: Masrul, Tal. & Dist.: Buldhana
2. Akshay s/o Devilal Mandve,
Age : 26 years, Occu.: Private Service,
R/o.: Warud, Post : Jamthi,
Tal. Buldhana, Dist.: Buldhana
3. Pankaj s/o Ramlal Dhamune,
Age : 26 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o.: Walsawangi, Tal. Bhokardan,
District : Jalna .... PETITIONERS
(Original Accused)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
Sangamner City Police Station,
Sangamner, Tal. Sangamner,
District : Ahmednagar
2. X.Y.Z. .... RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for the Petitioners
Ms. Uma S. Bhosale, APP for Respondent No.1-State
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Party in person
....
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13/08/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25/08/2025
2 Judgment in Cri.WP 1147-23.odt
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the parties.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. By way of this petition, the petitioners
who are the original accused in Special Case No.2 of 2023, are
seeking quashment of FIR No.414 of 2022, dated 10/06/2022,
registered against them in Sangamner City Police Station for the
offence under Section 376 (2)(n), 323, 504 of IPC and under Section
8 & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012, which is lodged by present respondent No.2 – victim. The
petitioners have also prayed for quashement of proceeding of
Special Case No.2 of 2023, pending before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sangamner arising out of the aforesaid FIR.
3. On going through the FIR filed by present respondent No.2, it
reveals that her marriage was solemnized on 14/05/2003 at Jalna,
but unfortunately her husband died due to cardiac-arrest on
01/04/2021. She is having two daughters. However, prior to three
years of the incident, she got acquainted with petitioner No.1
through mobile App-Facebook. Petitioner No.1 used to come to her
3 Judgment in Cri.WP 1147-23.odthouse at Jalna even during life time of her husband. Thus,
petitioner No.1 is a friend of her husband.
4. After death of her husband, the petitioner No.1 established
fiduciary relations with her and got transferred the amount, which
she had received on account of death of her husband, to his
account. Petitioner No.1, thereafter, avoided to repay the said
amount and when she made a complaint in respect of the same,
petitioner No.1 started threatening her. He then came to her house
at Jalna at about 8.00 p.m. under the influence of liquor and
assaulted her daughters for withdrawing of her complaint against
him. It is also contended by respondent No.2 that at the relevant
time, he committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter,
also, in the month of April, 2022 when she was residing at
Sangamner, petitioner No.1 alongwith the other petitioners, again
came to her house at about 8.00 p.m. and started outraging her
modesty. When her elder daughter tried to intervene, petitioner
Nos.2 & 3 caught her daughter and outraged her modesty by
pulling her clothes. When petitioner Nos.2 & 3 tried to ravish her,
respondent No.2 requested for not to spoil the life of her daughter.
At that time also petitioner No.1 committed forceful sexual
intercourse with her even in the presence of other petitioners and
her elder daughter. Therefore, respondent No.2 lodged an FIR
4 Judgment in Cri.WP 1147-23.odt
against the petitioners under the direction received from President
of Maharashtra State Commission for Women.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the FIR
lodged by respondent No.2, is full of false statements and it has
been registered only to harass and blackmail the petitioners and
that too with mala fide intention. According to him, respondent
No.2 has misused the provisions of law. He pointed out that after
the death of her husband, respondent No.2 developed love relations
with petitioner No.1 and she even asked him to divorce his first
wife. Respondent No.2 had in fact provided an amount of Rs.25
lakh to petitioner No.1 enabling him to take divorce from his wife-
Madhuri by paying one time alimony. He then pointed out that
respondent No.2 had in fact performed marriage with petitioner
No.1, but now she is making false accusations against petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that there are no
ingredients on record to connect the present petitioners with the
alleged crime. According to him, though the allegations in the FIR
are mainly against petitioner No.1, but there is no role of petitioner
Nos.2 & 3 in the alleged crime. As such, he prayed for quashing of
the FIR alongwith the proceeding of Special Case No.2 of 2023
arising out of it. Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied
on following judgments.
5 Judgment in Cri.WP 1147-23.odt
A) Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal
Appeal, arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.2793 of 2024;
B) Shivashankar @ Shiva vs. State of Karnataka
and another, Criminal Appeal No.504 of 2018,
arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.454 of 2017;
C) Judgment of this court in Criminal
Application No.1387 of 2020 (Shyjeesh K.
Thomas vs. State of Maharashtra & another);
D) Ms. X vs. Mr. A and others, in Criminal Appeal
arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.3187 of 2023;
E) Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and another, in Criminal Appeal No.1231 of
2022, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.7426 of
2022;
F) Biswajyoti Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal
and another, in Criminal Appeal arising out of
SLP (Cri.) No.4261 of 2024 &
G) Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. The State of
Maharashtra & another, in in criminal appeal
arising out of SLP(Cri.) No.10044 of 2024.
6. On the contrary, learned APP strongly opposes the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and pointed out that
there are direct allegations against all the petitioners in the FIR
itself and the other material on record, which is a part of
chargesheet also prima facie indicates that petitioner No.1
committed forceful sexual intercourse with respondent No.2 and
6 Judgment in Cri.WP 1147-23.odt
other petitioners tried to outrage the modesty of her daughter by
trying to remove her clothes.
7. Respondent No.2, who appeared as a party in person, also
opposed the submissions and through learned APP, she pointed
out as to how petitioner No.1 took disadvantage of her helpless
condition after the death of her husband and also extorted huge
amount of Rs.30 lakh, which she had received on account of death
of her husband. Thus, learned APP as well as respondent No.2
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. Heard rival submissions. Also perused the documents on
record.
9. Admittedly, charge sheet has been filed in the instant case. It
is significant to note that for exercising powers under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., the FIR as well as material in charge sheet can be looked
into. In the instant matter, the allegations against petitioner No.1
of committing rape, are levelled. Further, there are direct
allegations in the FIR itself as to how the other petitioners were
trying to outrage the modesty of elder daughter of respondent No.2
– victim. On going from the material on record, it appears that
petitioner Nos.1 & respondent No. 2 have made various allegations
against each other in support of their respective contentions.
7 Judgment in Cri.WP 1147-23.odt
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on the
judgments to falsify the allegations levelled against petitioner No.1
by respondent No.2.
11. In the Case of Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi (supra), it
is observed as follows.
“19. In our view, taking the allegations I the FIR and the
charge sheet as they stand, the crucial ingredients
of the offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC are
absent. A review of the FIR and the complainant’s
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. discloses no
indication that any promise of marriage was
extended at the outset of their relationship in 2017.
Therefore, even if the prosecution’s case is accepted
at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the
complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with
the appellant solely on account of any assurance of
marriage from the appellant.”
Further, in the same judgment, reference was made to the
observations in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State
of Maharashtra, (2019) SCC 608, as follows.
“18. 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
8 Judgment in Cri.WP 1147-23.odtmarry, 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.”
In the case of Shambhu Kharawr vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed
the FIR and the proceeding of criminal case by observing that the
act of forceful sexual intercourse as alleged by the prosecutrix, was
in fact case of consensual relationship. Further, in the case of
Amol vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court
quashed the FIR and criminal proceeding by observing that no
prima facie case under Section 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506 of
IPC, was made out.
12. In the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex
Court as mentioned above, we would like to quote that the inherent
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly
and in the light of observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335. As per those guidelines, the high court cannot go into the
truthfulness of the allegations made in the FIR and if there are
direct allegations made in the FIR then even the submissions in
9 Judgment in Cri.WP 1147-23.odt
respect of mala fides, cannot be looked into. The observations
relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the aforesaid
cases are made in the light of facts of those cases, but for quashing
of FIR by invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the nature
of allegations in each case are to be considered. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of State Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), has
observed that the FIR can be quashed only if the contents of FIR
are taken as proved and even after that no offence as allged, is
made out.
13. In the instant matter, there are direct allegations by
respondent No.2 against petitioner No.1 about commission of rape
on her. Moreover, there are also direct allegations against
respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the FIR itself for outraging the modesty of
the elder daughter of respondent No.2- victim. Further, there is
voluminous material on record in support of aforesaid allegations,
which needs to be tested on the basis of evidence during the trial.
It is already made clear by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
State Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), that at the time of
exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the court cannot
conduct a mini trial by appreciating the material on record as to
how it is not sufficient to establish the ingredients of the offence
levelled against the petitioners – accused.
10 Judgment in Cri.WP 1147-23.odt
14. Thus, considering the nature of serious allegations in the FIR
against the petitioners, we are not inclined to quash FIR No.414 of
2022, dated 10/06/2022, registered against them in Sangamner
City Police Station for the offence under Section 376 (2)(n), 323,
504 of IPC and under Section 8 & 12 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as Special Case No.2 of
2023, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Sangamner out of the aforesaid FIR. In the result, the writ petition
stands dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
VS Maind/-