The consensual nature of a relationship, the petitioner's remarriage and settlement in her life, and the passage of time since the lodging of the FIR can be considered in deciding to quash criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. Ms. Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, sought oral leave to amend the petition as the Sessions Case number is inadvertently referred as Sessions Case No.780 of 2013 instead of "Sessions Case No.48 of 2014". Leave as prayed for, is granted. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.

2. Heard learned counsel and learned APP appearing for the respective parties.

3. The petitioner is before this Court for seeking quashment of the proceedings initiated against respondent No.2 viz. Sessions Case No.48 of 2014 arising out of FIR No.463 of 2013 registered at Samata Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Ss. 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Though, normally the person facing proceedings, who is added as accused, approaches this Court for quashing the FIR or the criminal case, in the present case, it is the informant/petitioner who is before this Court for quashment of the proceedings in the backdrop of the peculiar circumstances.

4. Our attention was invited to the document placed on record viz. copy of the FIR at page 18. The sum and the substance of the FIR is that the petitioner was initially married to one Shri Vishal Kapoor in the year 2006. The couple was blessed with daughter "Parinaz". Subsequently due to matrimonial discord, the couple thought it fit to part their ways and accordingly, a petition for decree of divorce by mutual consent was filed in the Family Court in the year 2013. Respondent No.2 was a colleague of the petitioner while she was working in a private company as Response Executive. Respondent No.2 has also attended family function of the petitioner. In the year 2011, the petitioner was in need of some job and respondent No.2 provided assistance to the petitioner for securing job in the company where he himself was working. Then, there is also a reference of certain meetings/events of the company and respondent No.2 attended these meetings and events at various places such as Hyderabad and Goa. It is stated in the report that respondent No.2 by taking undue benefit of the close association between him and respondent No.2 exploited the petitioner physically. Initially, respondent No.2 assured to marry the petitioner but subsequently whenever the petitioner questioned respondent No.2 about marriage, he avoided the same. Denial to marry and ill-treatment at the instance of respondent No.2, led the petitioner to suffer severe depression and in that mental state, the petitioner took extreme step of committing suicide. Due to immediate medical assistance being provided to the petitioner, she was treated in private hospital and was discharged from the hospital on 13/8/2013. It is further stated in the FIR that due to repeated insistence of the petitioner, respondent No.2 for namesake, completed formality of marriage in temple and again continued to ill-treat the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the ill-treatment and deceit, the petitioner had approached the police station and after lodging the FIR, as the investigating agency was set in motion, necessary steps were taken and the exercise of investigation was completed by filing charge-sheet against respondent No.2. Now, for all these sequence of events referred above, it took pretty long time.

Respondent No.2 filed an application before the competent Court seeking discharge under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the plea taken by respondent No.2 was of consensual intimacy between the parties. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, was of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against respondent No.2 though it was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that whether the trial against respondent No.2 will end in conviction or acquittal is immaterial, but there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the respondent No.2. The application was accordingly rejected by an order dtd. 15/2/2020.

Being aggrieved by