936-APPLN-2476-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 936 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2476 OF 2024 Ujwal Haridas Bhogale Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Another Mr. R. R. Karpe a/w Ms. Sakshi Dushing h/f Mr. R. C. Bramhankar, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for Respondent No.1/State Mr. Y. C. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J DATE :SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 P. C. : 1. Applicant seeks quashment of the FIR No. 422/2022 registered with Kalamb Police Station, District Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent charge-sheet no. 08/2023 filed in case of RCC No. 32/2023 pending with JMFC, Kallamb. 2. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that Informant was sexually abused by the Applicant and more particularly against her will she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. Apart from the said fact, there is also statement made in the FIR with regard to the Applicant assuring to marry informant and taking care of her children. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that considering the status of the Informant as married woman, there is no substance in the 2026:BHC-AUG:42692-DB 936-APPLN-2476-2024.odt allegations with regard to the false promise of marriage being given by the Applicant. It is his submission that since the relationship lasted for a substantial period, in view of the judgment of in case of Jaspal Singh Kaural vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr, 2025 AIR(SC) 393, the present application deserves to be allowed. He drew attention of the Court to the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment with regard to the long-standing consensual relationship between the two adults and the possibility of lodging of the report on the relationship between them going sour. 4. Learned APP and learned Counsel for the informant opposed the said contention by referring to the allegations in the FIR, which according to them, requires recording of evidence. 5. Prima facie perusal of the FIR no doubt indicates that there is a statement made with regard to the promise of marriage being given by the Applicant to the informant so also taking care of her children, however, sexual intercourse committed is not said to be consensual in nature. The statement with regard to promise of marriage and looking after children is independent to the sexual relationship between the parties. As far as sexual intercourse is concerned, it is said to be non-consensual i.e. forcible. In this regard, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment in case of Jaspal Singh Kaural (supra), wherein the facts as recorded in the said order 936-APPLN-2476-2024.odt indicate that there was a consensual physical relationship solely based on the false promise of marriage. Needless to say that since there is no such consensual physical/sexual relationship, question of applying the said judgment to the present case does not arise. The specific allegation about forcible sexual intercourse committed with the informant by Applicant, in order to accept it to be correct or otherwise, would be a matter to be decided by Trial Court on considering evidence led before it. 6. The scope under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the criminal proceedings is limited to the effect that if the entire material in charge-sheet is accepted to be true, if offence is not made out, quashment of criminal proceeding is permissible. However, in case of disputed facts, the parties are required to be asked for go for trial wherein the controverted facts between the parties could be decided. Whether it is a case of consensual relationship as the defence of the applicant or of forcible sexual intercourse as claimed by the informant, could be a matter of evidence and only to be decided by the trial Court. 7. In view of above, this Court does not find it to be appropriate case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction to quash proceedings. Hence, Application stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani