Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

DR. DHRUVARAM MURLIDHAR SONAR vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

SCR Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 920
Year/Volume: 2018/ Volume 13
Date of Judgment: 22 November 2018
Petitioner: DR. DHRUVARAM MURLIDHAR SONAR
Disposal Nature: Appeal Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2018 INSC 1092
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Respondent: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Case Type: CRIMINAL APPEAL /1443/2018
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Exercise of power,scope – Discussed.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing ofproceedings – FIR was registered against the appellant and the coaccusedunder ss.376(2)(b), 420 r/w s.34, IPC and under s.3(1)(x)of the SC/ST Act – Appellant-acussed no.1 was a government doctorwhile complainant was nurse in the same establishment – Case ofcomplainant was that she had fallen in love with the appellant andthat she needed a companion as she was a widow – They wereliving together, sometimes at her house and sometimes at the residenceof the appellant – They were in a relationship with each other forquite some time and enjoyed each other’s company and appellanthad promised that he would marry her – However, when she cameto know that the appellant had married another woman, she lodgedan FIR – Appellant filed petition for quashing the FIR – High Courtdismissed the petition – On appeal, held: It was not the case ofcomplainant that the appellant had forcibly raped her – Theacknowledged consensual physical relationship between the partieswould not constitute an offence under s.376, IPC – There was atacit consent on part of complainant and the tacit consent given byher was not the result of a misconception created in her mind –Even if the allegations made in the complaint were taken at theirface value and accepted in their entirety, they would not make out acase against the appellant – Further, the FIR nowhere spelt out anywrong committed by the appellant under s.420, IPC or unders.3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act – Therefore, the High Court was notjustified in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under s.482of the Cr.P.C. – FIR quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376(2)(b),420 r/w s.34 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(1)(x).

2. Case referred
3. Act
  • Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
4. Keyword
  • Code of Criminal Procedure
  • 1973: s.482
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 2019 AIR 327 = 2019 (4) JT 324 = 2019 (4) Suppl. JT 324 = 2019 (1) SCALE 64