Bombay High Court
UJWAL HARIDAS BHOGALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the matter involves disputed facts concerning alleged forcible sexual intercourse and therefore cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC; the case must proceed to trial.
Summary
The applicant, Ujwal Haridas Bhogale, filed an application seeking quashment of FIR No. 422/2022 alleging offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 IPC, claiming that the alleged sexual relationship with a married informant was consensual and based on a false promise of marriage. The State opposed, asserting that the FIR alleges non‑consensual (forcible) intercourse and that the matter requires evidentiary examination. The applicant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaspal Singh Kaural (2025) to argue that a long‑standing consensual relationship negates the criminal liability. The Court examined the scope of Section 482 CrPC, noting that quashment is only appropriate when the material, if taken as true, does not constitute an offence, not where facts are disputed. Since the core allegation of forcible sexual intercourse is contested and must be decided on evidence, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. Consequently, the application for quashment was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the alleged sexual relationship was consensual.
- Whether the allegations of forcible sexual intercourse constitute a dispute of fact that necessitates trial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376(2)(n), 417
Subjects
- rape
- cheating
- false promise of marriage
- quashment
- Section 482 CrPC
- consensual relationship
- evidentiary dispute
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42692-DB
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
Page 1 of 3
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
Page 2 of 3
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
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…