Danish Alfaaz @ Danish Mirza And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 506 OF 2023

1. Danish Alfaaz @ Danish Mirza

2. Modh. Imran Mirza ...

Applicants

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. XYZ ...

Respondents .........

Mr. Shreyansh Mithare a/w Anjali Nimbalkar for the Applicant.

Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the State.

Ms. Neha Balani for Respondent No. 2.

.........

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI & N.R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 1 FEBRUARY 2024 P.C. :- At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants seeks leave to amend the cause title and prayer clause. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2.

Ms. Neha Balani undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2 before the Registry in the course of the day.

3.

By this application, the applicants seek to quash 1 / 5

Crime No. 110 of 2021 registered with Bangur Nagar Police Station for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 354, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.

The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the First Information Report lodged by respondent No. 2. 5.

The facts narrated in the FIR reveal that the respondent No. 2 had come to Mumbai to start her career in film industry. She came in contact with the applicant No.

1. Their acquaintance led to friendship and later in live in relationship.

6.

The respondent No. 2 has alleged that in January 2020, applicant No. 1 had forcible sexual relationship with her without her consent. It is stated that the applicant No. 1 continued having sexual relationship with her under the promise of marriage. The allegations are also made against the applicant No. 2, father of the applicant No. 1 for outraging her modesty by touching her inappropriately. Respondent No. 2 has also alleged that the applicant No. 1 had taken from her an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs to purchase 2 / 5

vehicle. The applicant No. 1 later avoided meeting her and refused to marry her.

7.

Learned counsel for the applicants and respondent No. 2 state that the parties have settled the dispute amicably. They have placed on record afodavit of respondent No. 2, wherein she has stated that dispute has been amicably settled and that she has no objection to quash the FIR.

8.

Respondent No. 2 is present before the Court. She confirms the contents of the afodavit and reiterates that she does not wish to proceed against the applicants. 9.

We are conscious of the fact that the offence under Section 376 of IPC is a serious offence and cannot be quashed with consent. Hence, we have gone through the FIR as well as other material placed before us. The facts narrated in the FIR reveal that the applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2, both adults were living together and had sexual relationship on multiple occasions. The relationship is consensual and the consent is not vitiated by 3 / 5

misconception of fact. Under such circumstances, the essential ingredients of offence of rape as defined under Section 375 of IPC are not made out.

10.

Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably, in our considered view, continuance of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility. Hence, this is a fit case to exercise powers under Sections 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of process of Court as well as to secure the ends of justice. Hence, the Application is allowed. 11.

Crime No. 110 of 2021 registered with Bangur Nagar Police Station for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 354, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed subject to payment of Rs. 1 Lakh each payable by the applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 to the Central Police Welfare Fund, Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai within a period of three weeks from today. The details of the bank account for payment of cost are as under :

Bank Name :

Axis Bank Ltd.

Branch Name :

Worli, Mumbai [MH], Mumbai - 4 / 5

400 025.

Account Name :

Central Police Welfare Fund Account No. :

914010029005759 IFSC Code :

UTIB0000060 12.

Parties are put to notice that the order shall stand recalled, in the event the cost is not paid within the stipulated time.

13. The applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 to place on record copy of the receipt before the Registry within three weeks from today. The Registry shall list the matter before the Court for compliance, in the event cost is not paid and order is not complied with, within the stipulated time. Digitally signed by MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Date:

2024.02.05 19:12:17 +0530 MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) 5 / 5