Bombay High Court reaffirms Bhajan Lal guidelines, declines to quash FIR for offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and POCSO — binding on subordinate courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/1147/2023 of SHAMKUMAR DEVANAND PURBHE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | HCBM030317312023 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More |
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad |
| Bench | Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar C. More, JJ. |
| Precedent Value | Affirms existing precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; criminal procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a High Court may quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC when it contains direct allegations of rape (Section 376 (2)(n), IPC) and outraging the modesty of a child (Sections 8 & 12, POCSO Act), despite petitioners’ mala fide plea. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and that direct allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet cannot be tested via mini-trial. Even assuming mala fides, quashment is inappropriate unless no offence is made out on the face of the FIR. Here, prima facie offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 504 IPC and Sections 8 & 12 of POCSO were disclosed, mandating trial. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Applied Bhajan Lal guidelines: no truth-testing of FIR allegations; inherent powers must be sparingly used; quash only if no offence prima facie exists. Relied on precedents elaborating “consent” and the scope of Section 482. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Victim—widowed in April 2021 with two daughters—acquainted via Facebook with petitioner No.1 before her husband’s death. Petitioner No.1 allegedly extorted her compensation funds, threatened her, and on two occasions in 2022 committed rape while petitioners Nos.2 & 3 outraged her elder daughter’s modesty. FIR lodged at Sangamner City PS under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 504 IPC and Sections 8 & 12 POCSO. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that High Courts cannot quash FIRs containing direct allegations simply on mala fide grounds or by undertaking a mini-trial.
- Emphasises sparing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC per State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
- Confirms that, even when charge-sheet material is considered, quashment is inappropriate if prima facie offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC or POCSO are made out.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The FIR and charge-sheet allege rape by petitioner No.1 (Section 376(2)(n), IPC) and outraging the modesty of a minor by petitioners Nos.2 & 3 (Sections 8 & 12, POCSO).
- Under Section 482 CrPC, courts may examine FIR/charge-sheet but must refrain from testing truth or conducting mini-trials.
- Applying the Bhajan Lal guidelines, quashment is permissible only if no offence is made out even assuming FIR allegations are true.
- Here, prima facie offences are disclosed; therefore, trial must be allowed to proceed, and quash petition fails.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- FIR is fabricated with mala fide intent to harass and blackmail.
- Alleged relationship was consensual; victim funded petitioner No.1’s divorce and marriage.
- Petitioners Nos.2 & 3 had no role in the offences as alleged.
Respondent No.1 – State of Maharashtra
- FIR contains direct allegations against all petitioners; charge-sheet confirms prima facie offences under relevant IPC and POCSO provisions.
Respondent No.2 – Victim (party in person)
- Petitioner No.1 exploited her vulnerability post-widowhood, extorted ₹30 lakh.
- Direct allegations of rape and strangulation of her daughter’s modesty; petition must be dismissed.
Factual Background
The victim, widowed in April 2021 and mother of two, had earlier befriended petitioner No.1 via Facebook. He allegedly induced her to transfer compensation funds, later threatened and assaulted her when she sought repayment. In 2022, petitioner No.1 is accused of forceful sexual intercourse in her home, while petitioners Nos.2 & 3 allegedly outraged her elder daughter’s modesty, prompting FIR No. 414/2022 at Sangamner City PS.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 CrPC: inherent powers to quash FIR/charges sparingly; no truth-testing of allegations.
- Section 376(2)(n) IPC: rape with false promise of marriage or undue influence.
- Sections 8 & 12, POCSO Act: sexual assault and punishment for sexual harassment of a child.
- Court applied existing interpretations without expanding or reading down statutory text.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – reaffirms Bhajan Lal guidelines on quashment under Section 482 CrPC.
Citations
- Cri.WP 1147/2023
- 2025:BHC-AUG:23069-DB
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) SCC 608
- Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl.) No.2793/2024
- Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) No.7426/2022
- Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No.10044/2024