1 7-J-APL-397-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 397 OF 2021 APPLICANT : Anil s/o Anandrao Gawai, Aged 45 years, Occ : Agriculturist, R/o Anand Nagar, Daryapur, Distt. Amravati. 9921174171. V E R S U S NON-APPLICANTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Daryapur, Distt. - Amravati. 2. Sau. Chhaya w/o Balu Khandekar, Aged about 28 years, Occ : Household, R/o. Peth Itbarpur, Tq: Daryapur, Distt. - Amravati. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A. J. Mirza, Advocate with Shri Piyush Rewatkar, Advocate for applicant. Shri N. B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1. Shri Shantanu Taywade, Advocate appointed as Amicus for non- applicant No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 20/02/2026. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The non-applicant No.2 was not represented by anybody, despite service. Shri Taywade, learned counsel is appointed to represent the victim as amicus curiae. 2026:BHC-NAG:3193-DB 2 7-J-APL-397-2021.doc 3. By this application, the applicant is seeking quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.242/2015 registered under Sections 376(2)(h), 376(d) and 504 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 4. A crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 - victim on an allegation that on 12/10/2015 at 11.00 a.m. when she was proceeding towards agricultural field, the present applicant and other co-accused suddenly came in front of her, held her hands and the present applicant has subjected her for the forceful sexual assault. She shouted for help, at that time, two persons namely Shrikrushna Raybole and Rajpal Gajbe came in the agricultural field and by seeing them that the applicant and other co-accused fled away from the spot of incident. On the basis of the said report, police have registered a crime against the present applicant and the other co-accused. After registration of the crime, the wheels of the investigation started rotating. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has visited the alleged spot of incident and drawn the punchnama, seized the pieces of bangles from the spot of the incident. The victim was referred for the medical examination and her medical certificate was obtained. Thereafter, the statement of the relevant witnesses including the eye-witnesses 3 7-J-APL-397-2021.doc are recorded and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the present applicant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who submitted that to give a counterblast to various complaints lodged by the present applicant against non-applicant No.2 and her family members, this FIR came to be lodged. The Civil Suits are also pending between the present applicant and the family members of the non-applicant No.2 and all the decisions of the Court are in favour of the present applicant and therefore, this FIR came to be lodged. He submitted that the FIR is on the basis of false, omnibus and baseless allegations. He submitted that it is also not substantiated by the medical report. In view of that, application deserves to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned APP for the State and learned Amicus for non-applicant No.2 submitted that considering the parameters which are laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. As there are two eye-witnesses who have seen the presence of the present applicant along with other co-accused in the agricultural field, they reached at the spot after hearing the 4 7-J-APL-397-2021.doc shouts of the victim, this fact is also substantiated by the spot panchnama as broken bangle pieces are seized from the spot of incident. At this stage, there is sufficient material to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. In view of that, application deserves to be rejected. 7. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire investigation papers, as per the allegation, the present applicant and other co-accused have subjected the informant for the forceful sexual assault when she was proceeding to her agricultural field. As per her allegations, when she shouted for help, two eye- witnesses Shrikrushna Raybole and Rajpal Gajbe came into the agricultural field and by seeing them, present applicant fled away from the spot. The statements of these two witnesses are also recorded during the investigation. They have also narrated that when they went in the agricultural field after hearing the shouts, they have seen two persons eloping from the spot of incident. The spot panchnama also discloses that broken bangle pieces were witnessed and seized from the spot of incident. Thus, the statement of the victim is substantiated by the statements of the eyewitness also. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that there are no injuries on the person of the victim 5 7-J-APL-397-2021.doc though she has alleged that two persons have subjected her for the forceful sexual assault. The settled position of law that injuries are not sine qua non for attracting the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. At this stage by applying the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, which are reproduced as under :- “(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 Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 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. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (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) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, 6 7-J-APL-397-2021.doc providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (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.” 8. The prima facie case is made out against the present applicant and therefore, application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :- ORDER 9. The application is rejected. [JUDGE] Choulwar