935 APL-54-2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.54 OF 2022 [Devidsa S/o Haridas Kandelkar ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra and Another] ___________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant. Ms S. S. Dhote, Addl. P. P. for Non-Applicant/State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 14 th NOVEMBER, 2025. . Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The applicant accused is seeking to quash the First Information Report and charge-sheet relating to the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 366, 354-A(2) and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The applicant contended that he has been implicated in a false and concocted case. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by victim on an allegation that she was subjected for the forceful sexual assault by the co-accused and the present applicant. The co-accused abetted the other co-accused, who were present at that time to commit the said offence. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who submitted that the co-accused Amol Haridas Kandelkar’s application was considered by this Court bearing No.325 of 2015 and the role of the 2025:BHC-NAG:12148-DB 935 APL-54-2022 2 present applicant and the said contemnor is similar one. The reply filed by the State also admits the said fact. At the instance of a report lodged by the victim, the offence came to be registered on 18.09.20214. The victim clearly stated that she got married on 13.04.2014 and as there was no smooth relationship, she has returned back to her maternal home. On 11.08.2014 at around 12:00 noon, five persons including the present applicant came to her house and then forcibly made her to sit on a motorcycle. The co-accused and the present applicant also accompanied the complainant and the accused No.1 by riding on another motorcycle for some distance. It is further alleged that the co-accused namely Ambadas forcibly subjected her for sexual assault on 12.08.2014 and on 05.09.2014. All five accused threatened her and the co-accused Ambadas demanded sexual intercourse. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant. 5. As far as the present applicant is concerned, the allegations are restricted to the extent that when the co-accused forcibly took the victim on a motorcycle he was present and followed them on another motorcycle for some distance. He states that there are no other allegations against the present applicant with regard to the incidents dated 11.08.2014 and 12.08.2014, though there is a reference that all five accused threatened the victim on 05.09.2014, which appears to be vague and without any specific details. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that entire episode has been narrated by the informant is false and 935 APL-54-2022 3 fabricated. However, considering the role attributed to the present applicant, the offence of abetment is not made out. The report indicates that from 12.08.2014 to 13.08.2014, the victim has voluntarily stated that she was at Shegaon. The said report of the victim totally contradicts the contents of the FIR. The complainant’s father informed the police that victim lady was missing from his house from 08.08.2014 and was untraceable till 12.08.2014. The earlier statement of the victim dated 13.08.2014 wherein, she specifically stated that on 08.08.2014, she went to Shegaon and she was at Shegaon from 08.08.2014 to 13.08.2014. As already observed that the prior report of the victim totally contradicts the contention of the FIR dated 18.08.2014, there is no specific allegation as far as the present applicant is concerned regarding threatened or sexual assault. The FIR is also lodged after the gap of one month. 7. Admittedly, facing trial is a serious offence and this Court has already considered the application of the other co-accused against whom similar allegations are levelled and therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Moreover, forcing the present applicant to face the trial would be the abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and therefore, we proceed to pass the following order : O R D E R i) Criminal application is allowed. 935 APL-54-2022 4 ii) The First Information Report bearing crime No.119 of 2014 dated 18.09.2014 registered with the non-applicant No.1 – Police Station Nandura, District Buldana for the offences nonpunishable under Section 376(2)(n), 366, 354-A(2) and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged by the non-applicant No.2, the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed and set aside in connection with the present applicant only. 8. In view of the above, the criminal application bearing No.54 of 2022 stands disposed of. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) TAMBE