DR. DHRUVARAM MURLIDHAR SONAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 920 · Decided: 22-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
DR. DHRUVARAM MURLIDHAR SONAR
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1443  of 2018)
NOVEMBER 22, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Exercise of power,
scope – Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of
proceedings – FIR was registered against the appellant and the co-
accused under 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 doctor
while complainant was nurse in the same establishment – Case of
complainant was that she had fallen in love with the appellant and
that she needed a companion as she was a widow – They were
living together, sometimes at her house and sometimes at the residence
of the appellant – They were in a relationship with each other for
quite some time and enjoyed each other’s company and appellant
had promised that he would marry her – However, when she came
to know that the appellant had married another woman, she lodged
an FIR – Appellant filed petition for quashing the FIR – High Court
dismissed the petition – On appeal, held:  It was not the case of
complainant that the appellant had forcibly raped her – The
acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties
would not constitute an offence under s.376, IPC – There was a
tacit consent on part of complainant and the tacit consent given by
her was not the result of a misconception created in her mind –
Even if the allegations made in the complaint were taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety, they would not make out a
case against the appellant – Further, the FIR nowhere spelt out any
wrong committed by the appellant under s.420, IPC or under
s.3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act – Therefore, the High Court was not
justified in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under s.482
of the Cr.P.C. – FIR quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376(2)(b),
420 r/w s.34 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(1)(x).
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 920
920
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
921
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well settled that exercise of powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. Under
this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the
Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions “abuse of
process of law” or “to secure the ends of justice” do not confer
unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of
process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in
accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise.
[Para 8][926-B-C]
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 ; Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 259 :
[1999] 1 SCR 1012 ;
State of Karnataka v.
M. Devendrappa and Anr. (2002) 3 SCC 89 : [2002]  1
SCR 275 ; Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Anr. (2017) 13 SCC 369 : [2017] 6
SCR 922  – relied on.
2.  For quashing the proceedings, meticulous analysis of
factum of taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is
not called for.  Appreciation of evidence is also not permissible
in exercise of inherent powers.  If the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has
been taken, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in
exercise of the inherent powers. [Para 12][928-G
3. Section 376(2)(b) prescribes punishment for the offence
of rape committed by a public servant taking advantage of his
official position on a woman in his custody as such public servant
or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him.  Section
375 defines the offence of rape and enumerates six descriptions
of the offence.  The first clause operates where the women is in
possession of her senses and, therefore, capable of consenting
but the act is done against her will and the second where it is
done without her consent; the third, fourth and fifth when there
is consent but it is not such a consent as excuses the offender,
because it is obtained by putting her, or any person in whom she
DR. DHRUVARAM MURLIDHAR SONAR v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.  The expre

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.