1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1091 OF 2010 Avinash Mahadu Bansode ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. S.J. Salunke, advocate for the applicant. Mr. V. G. Shelke, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. S.J. Salgare holding for Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, advocate for respondent no.2. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 13th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocate. 2. The application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of F.I.R. in connection with C.R. No.31/2010 registered at Majalgaon Police Station for the offences under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The F.I.R. purports to show that the respondent no.2 (victim) is educated up to 12th standard and was aged about 19 years at the relevant time. She narrated that her mother was 2 engaged as Sweeper in the Municipal Council for temporary period. The mother of the applicant was a candidate from the ward, and therefore, he used to canvass for his mother during the period of Municipal elections. Their intimacy was developed. When her mother was not at home and had gone out of station, one day the applicant allegedly went to house of the prosecutrix and ravished her. He threatened her to take her life, if she would raise cry. Thereafter he assured her to marry. He asked her to keep sexual relation with her under pretext he will marry her. However, though such relationship was continued from March 2008, she became pregnant. He got the abortion effected in hospital of Dr. Shinde. He lastly refused to marry her, and therefore, the F.I.R. was lodged. 4. The learned Advocate seeks to rely on certain observations of the Division bench in "Jayanti Rani Panda V/s State of West Bengal and another" {1984 Cri.L.J. 1535} and that of a Single Bench in "Anwar Khan Iqbal Khan V/s State of Maharashtra" {2010 All MR (Cri) 2124}. It is held in both the cases referred above mere failure to keep the promise at a future uncertain date can not be regarded as misconception of fact or fraudulent act or offence of rape. In "Pradeep Kumar Verma V/s State of Bihar and another" { 2007 CRI. L.J. 4333), the Apex Court held that where the accused deliberately made 3 misrepresentation to illicit consent of victim without having intention to marry her, it would be an act of rape within the ambit of Section 375(2) of the Indian Penal Code. It is not necessary to scan the evidence at this juncture in order to examine whether the act of applicant would amounts to rape or not. Nor it is necessary to examine whether he had really no fraudulent intention at the inception or that he made false representation to the prosecutrix in order to obtain sexual pleasures from her. This is a subject which can not be dealt with only after full dressed trial. The power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is limited and has to be sparingly used under extraordinary circumstances. Considering the ratio of the above cases, which relate to the observations as a result of trial of the matters, at the premature stage it is not possible to quash the F.I.R. on basis of probable defence available to the applicant. In this view of the matter, the application is dismissed. If the applicant desires to file separate application for anticipatory bail, he is at liberty to do so. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri1091.10