SHEIKH ARIF Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A First Information Report (the impugned FIR) was registered against the appellant at the instance of the second respondent for the offences punishable under Ss. 376(2), 377, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and various clauses of Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.

(2.) The impugned FIR was registered based on the second respondent's complaint dtd. 23/2/2018 filed with Sadar Police Station, Nagpur. The said complaint disclosed that the appellant and second respondent got acquainted with each other in the year 2011. The second respondent was, at the relevant time, employed in a beauty parlour. The appellant used to visit the same parlour to undergo a hair-cutting course. The second respondent's case is that in June 2011, the appellant proposed her. She agreed, and after that, they started meeting. The allegation made by the second respondent is that an effort was made in the year 2011 by the appellant to maintain a physical relationship with her, but she prevented him from doing so. However, she stated that in the year 2012, by giving a false promise of marriage, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her on a number of occasions. In February 2013, the second respondent realised that she was pregnant. Therefore, in March 2013, the appellant took the second respondent to a hospital where abortion was done. Even thereafter, the appellant continued his physical relationship with the second respondent. It is stated by the second respondent that in July 2017, there was an engagement between her and the appellant. Even after the engagement, the appellant continued to maintain a physical relationship with the second respondent.

(3.) In December 2017, when the second respondent realised that she was pregnant, the appellant told her that they would get married very soon. In view of the said assurance, the second respondent did not undergo an abortion. She was treated for pregnancy in a hospital at the instance of the appellant. The allegation of the second respondent is that on 18/1/2018, she saw photographs of the engagement ceremony of the appellant with another woman in his cell phone. The second respondent stated that a day before the date on which the complaint was filed, she was informed that the appellant had married another girl on 22/2/2018.