Shafaque Ahemad Sohel Sheikh v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Pachpaoli Nagpur And Anotehr
2025:BHC-NAG:12818-DB APL745.24.odt 1/16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 745/2024 1.
Shafaque Ahemad Sohel Sheikh, Aged about 27 years, Occ- Driver, R/o Aketa Colony, Behind Jaiswal Hotel, Nagpur, Maharashtra ... APPLICANT ...VERSUS...
1.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Pachpaoli, Nagpur.
2.
XYZ In Crime no. 200/2024, Through Police Station, Pachpaoli, Nagpur ...NON-APPLICANTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Kunal M. Pande, Advocate for applicant Mrs. Shilpa Giratkar, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2. Mrs. Shamsi Haider, APP for non-applicant/State --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM :
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 17th NOVEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 24th NOVEMBER, 2025.
APL745.24.odt 2/16 JUDGMENT (PER :
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2.
The applicant have approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 05.03.2024, registered as Crime no. 0200/2024 at Police Station Pachpaoli, District Nagpur, for offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant have further prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet/Final Report bearing Form no. 170/2025 dated 12.09.2025, which is presently pending before the learned District and Sessions Court, Nagpur. 3.
As reflected from the statements of non-applicant 2 and the contents in the First Information Report, it is the case of non-applicant 2 that, while non-applicant no. 2 was studying in B.Com First Year at Sindhu Mahavidyalaya, at that time, one Shafaq Sohel Ahmed Sheikh (applicant), aged 27 years, used to come to the college every morning around 8.00 a.m. and got acquainted with the
APL745.24.odt 3/16 non-applicant 2, and on 08.02.2018, proposed to the non-applicant no. 2 on this assurance, non-applicant no. 2 accepted his proposal. Thereafter, both exchanged phone numbers, spoke regularly over calls, and went out together. Further in the year 2018, when non-applicant no. 2 was alone at home, applicant came at around 3.00 p.m. to her house. Non-applicant no. 2 made him sit in the hall after which the applicant asked non-applicant no. 2 to show him the house. While being shown around, upon reaching the bedroom, applicant made non-applicant no. 2 lie on the bed and again stated that he wanted to marry her and allegedly had forcibly sexual intercourse with the non-applicant no. 2 against her will. 4.
It is further stated in the First Information Report that again, on 22.02.2024, when non-applicant no. 2 was at home, applicant came near her house at about 3.00 p.m. and told non-applicant no. 2 that applicant wanted to take her to meet his parents to discuss their marriage. Believing him, non-applicant no. 2 accompanied him. Upon reaching his residence, his mother was sleeping, the applicant took non-applicant no. 2 into his bedroom where both sat for some time. The applicant again stated that he wanted to marry non-appli-
APL745.24.odt 4/16 cant no. 2 and thereafter allegedly established sexual relations with her. After that, applicant dropped non-applicant no. 2 near her residence around 4.30 p.m. and told non-applicant no. 2 not to meet him anymore and that he did not wish to marry non-applicant no. 2. Thereafter, however the, applicant stopped answering the calls of non-applicant no. 2. Aggrieved by this, non-applicant no. 2 lodged the First Information Report which is being challenged in the present application.
5.
We have heard Mr Kunal Pande, Advocate for applicant, Mrs Shamsi Haider, APP for non-applicant no. 1/State, and, Mrs. Shilpa Giratkar, Advocate for non-applicant no.2.
6.
Mr. Kunal Pande, Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations levelled in the First Information Report are false, frivolous, and vexatious. It is submitted that the applicant and non-applicant no. 2 were earlier in a consensual relationship, and after they mutually separated, there was no communication between them for a considerable period. It is further submitted that thereafter, applicant got engaged, upon learning of the applicant's engagement, non-applicant no. 2 became furious and allegedly
APL745.24.odt 5/16 began threatening the applicant, demanding that the engagement be cancelled. Non-applicant no. 2 visited the residence of the applicant, threatened him and his family members, and insisted that the engagement be dissolved.
7.
It is submitted that non-applicant no. 2 thereafter contacted the fiancee of the applicant, visited her residence, created a scene, and threatened fiancee and her mother, insisting that the engagement be called off. She further threatened that she would lodge a false criminal case against the applicant if her demands were not meet. Non-applicant no. 2 also allegedly threatened to commit suicide and falsely implicate the applicant, his family members and the family of his fiancee.
8.
It is submitted that due to the persistent harassment by non-applicant no. 2, the applicant approached Police Station Yashodhara, Nagpur, where a Non-Cognizable Report for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against non-applicant no. 2. Further the applicant issued a legal notice dated 02.03.2024 to non-applicant no. 2, which was delivered on 04.03.2024. Similarly, the mother of the fiancee of the
APL745.24.odt 6/16 applicant issued a notice dated 02.03.2024 to non-applicant no. 2, delivered on 04.03.2024.
9.
It is submitted that the applicant and his family members were constrained to file Regular Civil Suit no. 343/2024 seeking permanent injunction against non-applicant no. 2, while the fiancee of the applicant and her mother filed Regular Civil Suit no. 344/2024 seeking similar reliefs.
10.
Mrs. Shamsi Haider, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant no.1 has strongly opposed the contentions of the applicant and stated that the prosecution agency was correct in registering offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code. The counsel for respondent no.2 reiterates the contents of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and opposed the contentions made in the application.
11.
In light of the undisputed facts on record, we have carefully perused the First Information Report and the material placed along with the present application. It is evident that both the applicant, aged about 27 years, and non-applicant no. 2, aged about 25 years,
APL745.24.odt 7/16 at the time of lodging the present First Information Report were adults capable of understanding the nature and consequences of their conduct. The First Information Report further indicates that the parties came into contact in the year 2018 and remained in a consensual relationship for approximately five to six years and till early 2024 there is not a single whisper in the entire complaint that any physical relation took place without her consent or under any threat.
12.
The sequence of events reveals that only after non-applicant no. 2 came to know about the applicant's engagement, she started threatening the applicant, his fiancee, and their respective family members. The material placed on record further shows that non-applicant no. 2 repeatedly visited the applicant's residence as well as the residence of his fiancee, creating scenes, extending threats, and attempting to coerce the applicant into dissolving his engagement. The consistent pattern of intimidation is further corroborated by the N.C.R. dated 26.02.2024 registered under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the applicant specifically reported the threats extended by non-applicant no. 2. Even
APL745.24.odt 8/16 after registration of the N.C.R., non-applicant no. 2 continued her conduct and again established contact with the applicant under the guise of "settling the matter," only to assault him physically and pressurize him to withdraw the N.C.R.
13.
The complaint has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 6 years qua the 2018 incident and approximately 4-5 months qua the incident of 22.02.2024. Such enormous delay, coupled with the sequence of events prima facie establishes that the complaint is mala fide, vindictive and an afterthought intended only to harass the applicant and derail his impending marriage.
14.
In view of these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the relationship was nothing but consensual in nature between the two major persons. The concept of 'consent' has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608, which reads as under :
"16. Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself
APL745.24.odt 9/16 was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a "misconception of fact" that vitiates the woman's "consent". On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. The "consent" of a woman under Section 375 is vitiated on the ground of a "misconception of fact" where such misconception was the basis for her choosing to engage in the said act. In Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675, this Court observed:
"21. ... There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees
APL745.24.odt 10/16 to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently.
24. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time, i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The "failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term "misconception of fact", the fact must have an immediate
APL745.24.odt 11/16 relevance". Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, "unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her." (Emphasis supplied)
17. In Uday vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, the complainant was a college going student when the accused promised to marry her. In the complainant's statement, she admitted that she was aware that there would be significant opposition from both the complainant's and accused's families to the proposed marriage. She engaged in sexual intercourse with the accused but nonetheless kept the relationship secret from her family. The court observed that in these circumstances the accused's promise to marry the complainant was not of immediate relevance to the complainant's decision to engage in sex-
APL745.24.odt 12/16 ual intercourse with the accused, which was motivated by other factors: (SCC P.58, Para 25) "25. There is yet another difficulty which faces the prosecution in this case. In a case of this nature two conditions must be fulfilled for the application of Section 90 IPC. Firstly, it must be shown that the consent was given under a misconception of fact. Secondly, it must be proved that the person who obtained the consent knew, or had reason to believe that the consent was given in consequence of such misconception. We have serious doubts that the promise to marry induced the prosecutrix to consent to having sexual intercourse with the appellant. She knew, as we have observed earlier, that her marriage with the appellant was difficult on account of caste considerations. The proposal was bound to meet with stiff opposition from members of both families. There was therefore a distinct possibility, of which she was clearly conscious, that the marriage may not take place at all despite the promise of the appellant. The question still remains
APL745.24.odt 13/16 whether even if it were so, the appellant knew, or had reason to believe, that the prosecutrix had consented to having sexual intercourse with him only as a consequence of her belief, based on his promise, that they will get married in due course. There is hardly any evidence to prove this fact. On the contrary, the circumstances of the case tend to support the conclusion that the appellant had reason to believe that the consent given by the prosecutrix was the result of their deep love for each other. It is not disputed that they were deeply in love. They met often, and it does appear that the prosecutrix permitted him liberties which, if at all, are permitted only to a person with whom one is in deep love. It is also not without significance that the prosecutrix stealthily went out with the appellant to a lonely place at 12 o'clock in the night. It usually happens in such cases, when two young persons are madly in love, that they promise to each other several times that come what may, they will get married..." (Emphasis supplied)
APL745.24.odt 14/16
18. To summarize 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 marry, 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."
15.
We are therefore of the view that the matter squarely falls within the laid down parameters of the judgment in the case of State of Harayana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others,1992 AIR 604, which read as under: "1) ........
APL745.24.odt 15/16
2) ........
3) ........
4) ........
5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6) ........
7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
16.
The allegations made in the First Information Report, upon careful perusal, appear inherently improbable and devoid of material substance. It is difficult to accept that a woman aged about
APL745.24.odt 16/16 25 years, fully capable of understanding the nature of her conduct and allegedly in a voluntary relationship with the applicant for nearly 5-6 years, would continue to meet him and maintain physical relations over such a prolonged period if the same were induced by deception or coercion.
17.
In our view, therefore, this is a fit case to quash the chargesheet/final report. Hence, we passed the following order.
ORDER
i) Application is allowed.
ii) First Information Report bearing No. 0200/2024 dated 05.03.2024, registered with Police Station Pachpaoli, Nagpur, for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is quashed and set aside.
ii) Charg sheet no. 170/2025, dated 12.09.2025, file by the nonapplicant no. 1 police for the offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is quashed and set aside. iii) Application is disposed of, accordingly.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Shubham