The Respondent No.2 further stated that on 28 th January, 2016 the Applicant left the house on the pretext of attending marriage of his friend at Khajurao, Madhya Pradesh.He he did not return and started avoiding her phone calls.She later learnt that the Applicant had left the job at Kandivali, Mumbai.RESERVED ON : 17th MARCH, 2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 17th APRIL, 2017 JUDGMENT (PER ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.).1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent of parties taken for hearing.This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No. 93 of 2016 registered with Mulund Police Station for offences punishable under Section 376, 420, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::The Respondent No.2 had lodged the aforesaid FIR alleging that the applicant had sexual relations with her from September, 2014 against her will and under the false promise of marriage.She had alleged that the she was compelled to terminate the pregnancy as the Applicant had avoided to take responsibility of the child.She had further claimed that the applicant had got married to her and subsequently left her alleging that he had performed the marriage ceremony only to avoid the prosecution.Mr. Dubash, the learned Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Respondent no.2 is a major.The relations between the Applicant and the Respondent No.2 were consensual.He has further submitted that the allegations made in the First Information Report, even taken at its face value do not make out ingredients of the offence under Section 376 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code.He has submitted that the continuation of these proceedings would be nothing but abuse of process of law.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::Mr. Bodke, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 has opposed the application on the ground that the applicant had physical relationship with the Respondent No.2 against her will and without her consent.He has submitted that the applicant induced the Respondent No.2 to have physical relationship with her on false promise of marriage.He submits that the allegations leveled against the Applicant constitute offence under Section 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.He has relied upon the following decisions:-Bharat Devdas Salvi & Ors.Mohammed Faizan Amir Khan vs. The State of Maharashtra, dated 5th July, 2016 in Cri.Writ Petition No.1721 of 2016Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Anr.2006 DGLS (SC) 646Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2013 DGLS (SC)Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors 2006(2) Bom.1 Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.2 Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec.155(2) of the Code.3 Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Respondent No.2 had lodged a report dated 7th March, 2016 wherein she had alleged that she had developed friendship with the Applicant.She had stated that she was not willing to have physical relationship with the applicant without entering into marital ties.However, the Applicant had physical relationship with her several times, by convincing her that their relationship was as good as husband-wife relationship.She has further stated that she had terminated the pregnancy as the Applicant was ready to take the responsibility of the child.She has stated that the Applicant maintained goods relationship with her for about one month after termination of the pregnancy, but latter started avoiding her.The Respondent No.2 further stated that the family of the pps 6 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 ::: cri apl 847-16.doc applicant, particularly his sister, were not supportive and they abused her and told her that the Applicant would not marry her.Hence she went to the Mulund Police Station to lodge a complaint.The police called the Applicant and his sister and thereafter the Applicant told her that he was ready to marry her.She resided at her parental house for about one week and thereafter started living with the Applicant in a rental premises.She has stated that the applicant behaved normally for a few days, but thereafter started demanding unnatural sex and also subjected her to physical and mental cruelty.The applicant, subsequently claimed that the marriage was not valid and that he had married her only to prevent her from lodging complaint against him.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::He also sent an email to the pps 7 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 ::: cri apl 847-16.doc Respondent No.2 asking her to arrange a resident for herself.In these circumstances, she lodged FIR against the Applicant for having physical relations with her since July 2014 under the false promise of marriage.Based on the said FIR, C.R.No. 93/2016 was registered against the Applicant for the offences under Section 376, 420, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::The first informant is admittedly a major.The FIR does not indicate that the Respondent No.2 / First Informant had consented to have physical relationship with the Applicant under fear or misconception of facts.On the contrary, the contents of the FIR reveal that the relationship between the Applicant and the respondent No.2 was totally consensual.The Applicant and the Respondent No.2 thereafter got married and continued to maintain physical relationship as husband and wife.In the light of these facts the decision in State of UP vs. Naushad and Karthi @ Karthik (supra) are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the present case.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::The FIR reveals that the initial physical relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent No.2 was consensual.Subsequently they married each other and continued having physical relationship as husband and wife.The relationship between the husband and wife or the consensual relationship between the parties without any deceit or inducement would not constitute the offence of rape and cheating within the meaning of Sections 375 and 415 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the Respondent No.2 has made the imputations of rape and cheating only because the Applicant had walked out of the marriage.The allegations leveled in the FIR even if taken at its face value do not disclose essential ingredients of "rape" and "cheating" as defined under sections 375 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code and made punishable under sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.Under the circumstances, and in view of the discussion above, the application is allowed.The FIR No. 93 of 2016 registered with Mulund Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code