SUMIT DATTATRAY NIKAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (BOMBAY)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. Perused the papers of investigation.

(2.) This is an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is arrested on 8/1/2018 in Crime No. 3 of 2018 registered at Mahad MIDC Police Station for offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 420, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 7/1/2018 one Ms. Kalyani Shivalkar lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that she is working in Samsung Mobile Gallery. She was transferred to Mahad. She had no room to stay. Shrikant Pawar had helped her to get accommodation. Shrikant Pawar was staying with Sumit Nikam i.e. the present applicant. He had also started residing with them in the same flat. According to her, after one week, the present applicant had expressed his love for her. She had disclosed to him that she was married in the year 2009. That she was not residing with her husband since the marriage was without her consent. He still insisted upon her to get married. In the year 2015, she had obtained divorce from her first husband. It is alleged that the present applicant had introduced her to his parents. His parents are not agreeable with him to marry with her. However, the applicant had assured her that he will get married to her. There was quarrel between the applicant and Shrikant Deokar and therefore, Shrikant Deokar had withdrawn himself from the said flat and the flat was occupied by the applicant and the complainant. According to her, she was insisting upon him to get married to her as they had established physical relations. She had stated in the FIR that she had not consented to sexual intercourse. However, he had forced himself upon her on an assurance that they would get married. He was also using her debit card and credit card. They had also stayed at lodge in Pune. In the meanwhile, she was transferred to Pen and thereafter, according to her, he was evading to meet her. He has abused her. On 19/12/2017 she had asked him for his final decision in respect of the marriage. He had taken the complainant to her family and handed over her custody to her family members. According to the complainant, since he had refused to marry her, she was constrained to file report at the police station.