VISHWAS BAJIRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner invoking Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 14/9/2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, thereby rejecting the discharge application filed by him in Special Case No.198/2018, where he faces a charge of Sec. 376, 354, 354A, 323, 324, 504, 506 of the IPC. The impugned order has refused the discharge on the ground that there is sufficient material which would justify the prosecution against the petitioner by subjecting him to trial.

(2.) Heard learned Senior counsel Mr.Mundargi i/b Satyam Nimbalkar for the petitioner and learned APP Mr.S.R. Agarkar, for the State. The background facts in which the relief is sought, would reveal that the complainant, a lady aged 60 years, filed a private complaint before the JMFC, Pune, in the year 2015 and she sought invocation of offences punishable u/s.354, 509, 420, 504, 506 IPC. Pursuant to an order passed u/s.156(3) by the JMFC, the police recorded an additional statement of the complainant and thereafter, Sec. 376 and 354A was invoked in a C.R. registered with Kothrud Police Station vide C.R. No.290/2016 and on completion of investigation, in the subject C.R, charge-sheet came to be filed before the Magistrate on 6/2/2018. The statement of the complainant recorded on 20/6/2016 contain a narration that she was residing in Pune and she was married in the year 1986, but obtained divorce in the year 1993. For her survival, she joined the post of Head Master in a School, and since the petitioner was working as a Chairman of the said School, she was introduced to him. As per the complainant, he was aware about she being a divorcee and he offered his sympathies to her and on one pretext or the other, made every attempt to meet her personally. At times, without any justiceable reason, he used to call her to his house and indulge in personal talks. Taking advantage of the fact that she is a divorcee, he made every attempt to come closer to her and expressed his dissatisfaction with his own married life and also expressed his desire to solemnize the marriage with her, so that he can lead a happy and peaceful life. Disapproving the said behaviour, she resigned from the job in the year 1994 and started residing with her parents. In the year 1995, she married another person but within short span of four years, her husband succumbed to an accidental death. Thereafter, she was in search of a new job and hence was in need of an experience certificate from her erstwhile school and when she contacted the petitioner, he asked her to collect the certificate. For this reason, she again came in contact with the petitioner who continued with his behaviour of imposing himself upon her and requesting for solemnization of the marriage. She refused to indulge him and expressed that she is ready to continue the friendly relationship, but was not in favour of marriage.

(3.) As per the complaint, on 23/1/2005, being her birth date, the petitioner visited her and presented a gold ring and brought a cake for celebrating the occasion. He induced her by expressing his liking for her and his desire to solemnize the marriage. It is for the first time on this day, physical relationship was established between them and thereafter, as per the version of the prosecutrix, he brought various gift articles like jewellery, sarees etc, and even assured her that a flat belonging to him would be transferred in her name. Thereafter, they continued to meet in different cities in different locations, hotels, resorts, the details of which are narrated in the complaint. He accompanied her on distinct destinations by projecting her as his wife for the purpose of booking the air tickets, booking of lodges, as etc, where he gave her name as Mrs. Patil. His credit card was also given to her for withdrawal of money, as and when needed by her and he even arranged for a car for her conveyance. As per her own version, he had also borne the expenditure for her foreign travels and even the keys of his flat in Dadar, Mumbai, were entrusted to her. The above version reflect that the complainant and the petitioner continued to project to the Society as husband and wife and they shared a mutual relationship for considerable long period of time.