ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1) A First Information Report (the impugned FIR) was registered against the appellant at the instance of the second respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 377, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and various clauses of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

2) The impugned FIR was registered based on the second respondent's complaint dated 23rd February 2018 filed with Sadar Police Station, Nagpur. The said complaint disclosed Digitally signed by ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2024.01.30 16:30:04 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified that the appellant and second respondent got acquainted with each other in the year 2011. The second respondent was, at the relevant time, employed in a beauty parlour. The appellant used to visit the same parlour to undergo a hair-cutting course.

The second respondent’s case is that in June 2011, the appellant proposed her. She agreed, and after that, they started meeting. The allegation made by the second respondent is that an effort was made in the year 2011 by the appellant to maintain a physical relationship with her, but she prevented him from doing so. However, she stated that in the year 2012, by giving a false promise of marriage, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her on a number of occasions. In February 2013, the second respondent realised that she was pregnant.

Therefore, in March 2013, the appellant took the second respondent to a hospital where abortion was done. Even thereafter, the appellant continued his physical relationship with the second respondent. It is stated by the second respondent that in July 2017, there was an engagement between her and the appellant. Even after the engagement, the appellant continued to maintain a physical relationship with the second respondent.

3) In December 2017, when the second respondent realised that she was pregnant, the appellant told her that they would get married very soon. In view of the said assurance, the second respondent did not undergo an abortion. She was treated for pregnancy in a hospital at the instance of the appellant. The allegation of the second respondent is that on 18th January 2018, she saw photographs of the engagement ceremony of the appellant with another woman in his cell phone. The second respondent stated that a day before the date on which the complaint was filed, she was informed that the appellant had married another girl on 22nd February 2018.

4) The case of the appellant is that there was a Nikah between him and the second respondent on 20th January 2017 at Junglee Peer Baba Dargah. The case of the appellant is that he could not produce the original Nikahnama, but a copy thereof was seized by the police. The case of the appellant is that in the passport issued to the appellant on 17th August 2017, the name of the second respondent appears as the wife of the appellant.

SUBMISSIONS

5) The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the long relationship between the appellant and the second respondent was always consensual. He submitted that the appellant had married the second respondent on 20th January 2017. He urged that the prosecution of the appellant is an abuse of process of law. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra is that whether the appellant maintained a relationship on the basis of the false promise of marriage or not is a question to be decided at the time of trial as it is a matter of evidence. He invited our attention to the counter filed by the State in which it was stated that the report of a handwriting expert has been called for as regards the genuineness of the signatures on the Nikahnama. The learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the second respondent relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh1. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that