SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249365

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE URMILA SACHIN JOSHI- PHALKEHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE
SHARDUL SHIVDAS UKEY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PSO POLICE STATION BELTARODI DIST. NAGPUR AND ANOTHER – Respondent
APL/998/2021



##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-NAG:14849-DB

J-apl998.21 final.odt 1/11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.998 OF 2021

Shri. Shardul Shivdas Ukey,

Aged about : 30 years,

Occupation : Private Service,

R/o. Plot No. 12, Waghmare Layout,

Parsodi, Tahsil : Umred,

Distt. : Nagpur – 441 203.

(M) 95035 44746. : APPLICANT

...VERSUS...

1. The State of Maharashtra

Through Police Station Officer

Police Station, Beltarodi,

Nagpur.

2. Shruti Suresh Ramteke,

Age : 29 years, Occ. : Service,

R/o.108, A-1 Building, Forest

Seminary Hills, Colony,

Gittikhadan, Nagpur. : NON-APPLICANTS

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Mr. J.M. Gandhi, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. Nikhil Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.

Mr. Chaitanya B. Barve, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 11 th DECEMBER, 2025.

PRONOUNCED ON : 23 rd DECEMBER, 2025.

JUDGMENT : (Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned

##PAGE2##

J-apl998.21 final.odt 2/11

counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The applicant has approached this Court by filing the

present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the First Information Report

(for short “FIR”) dated 07.08.2021, registered as Crime No.

337/2021 at Police Station Beltarodi, Nagpur, as also for quashing

of Charge-sheet dated 30.08.2025 registered as Final Report Form

No.151/2025 under Section 376 (2)(n) of Indian Penal Code (for

short “IPC”) pending before learned Special Judicial Magistrate,

Nagpur.

3. As per the case of non-applicant No. 2, and as reflected

in the First Information Report dated 07.08.2021, it is the case of

non-applicant No.2 that, present applicant and she became

acquainted through the matrimonial website ‘shaadi.com’. They

met for the first time on 19.03.2020, began communicating over

phone calls, and gradually their acquaintance developed into a love

affair. Subsequently, on 09.09.2020, the applicant invited

non-applicant No. 2 to meet him at Hotel Ashoka, Nagpur, took her

to a hotel room, compelled her to consume alcohol, and established

physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage.

Thereafter, the applicant continued to call her and established

##PAGE3##

J-apl998.21 final.odt 3/11

physical relations on multiple occasions.

4. Further, on 19.11.2020, non-applicant No. 2 learnt that

the applicant was going to be engaged to another girl. When she

confronted him about the same, he replied that although his

parents wanted him to marry someone else, he intended to marry

only non-applicant No. 2. However, due to this development,

non-applicant No. 2 became distressed, stopped communicating

with the applicant, and lodged the First Information Report which

is challenged in the present application.

5. We have heard Mr. J.M. Gandhi, learned counsel for

applicant, Mr. Nikhil Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor, for non-

applicant No.1/State and Mr. Chaitanya Barve, learned counsel for

non-applicant No.2.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits the

allegations are founded on an admitted long-standing consensual

relationship between the applicant and Non-applicant No.2. Even

assuming, without admitting, that the initial physical intimacy was

on a promise of marriage, the subsequent and continued

relationship over a considerable period cannot, in law, be construed

as being on such pretext, but is clearly consensual in nature.

7. The learned counsel submits that there is unexplained

##PAGE4##

J-apl998.21 final.odt 4/11

delay in lodging the First Information Report. The alleged incident

is of 09.09.2020, whereas the complaint was filed on 07.08.2021,

after an inordinate delay of nearly eleven months, without any

plausible explanation except the alleged breakdown of the

relationship.

8. Learned Counsel further submits that, First Information

Report itself discloses that on 19.11.2020, when non-applica

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top