1 (APL-640.11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.640 OF 2011 Sangram Ramchandra Jedhe .... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra and Others .... Respondents. Mr. Prashant M. Patil for the applicant. Mrs. V.R. Bhosale APP for the State. Mr. Ranjeet Patil for Respondent No.3. CORAM: V. M. KANADE & A.M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATE : 8 th September, 2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3 and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This application is filed by the Applicant under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR bearing C.R. No. 21 of 2011 registered with the Bhor Police Station. 2 (APL-640.11) 3. Prosecution case is that on 09/06/2011, at about 09.00 A.M., the Applicant came to the Complaint’s house and had forcible sexual intercourse without her consent. It is alleged that, at that time, Complainant’s neighbor suddenly entered the room and witnessed the said incident and also scolded the Complainant and, thereafter, present complaint was filed. The Complainant i.e. Respondent no.3 herein has filed her affidavit-in-reply in which it has been stated that she had given her consent and only on account of being caught by her neighbor, she had lodged the complaint due to pressure put on her by her relatives. A copy of the said affidavit-in- reply is served on the applicant. 4. The Apex Court in Jagdish Chanana vs. State of Haryana1 and in Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab2 has held that this Court can quash the complaint by consent of parties if the dispute is of a personal nature. In the present case, it is apparent that the dispute is purely a personal one. 5. Taking into consideration the affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.3 and also the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Chanana (supra) & Madan Mohan Abbot (supra), in our view, there is no impediment in quashing the FIR which is registered against the applicant herein. The Complainant – Respondent No.3 was 35 years old at the time when the said alleged offence took place and 1 AIR 2008 SC 1968 2 AIR 2008 SC 1969 3 (APL-640.11) she has, in her affidavit, now contended that she does not have any grievance against the applicant herein. 6. In this view of the matter, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. Application is accordingly disposed of. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)