Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) By its judgement dated 7 February 2019, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 "CrPC". The appellant sought the quashing of a First Information Report "FIR" registered against him on 17 May 2016 with the Panvel City Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code "IPC" and Sections 3(1) (u), (w) and 3(2) (vii) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (as amended by the Amendment Act, 2015), "SC/ST Act". The second respondent is the complainant.
(3.) The allegations in the FIR are summarised thus: (i) According to the complainant, she and the appellant have known each other since 1998. She would speak to the appellant on the phone and met him regularly as early as 2004. In 2008 the appellant proposed marriage and assured her that their belonging to different castes would not be a hindrance. The appellant allegedly promised to marry the complainant after the marriage of his elder sister. On 23 January 2009 the appellant allegedly re-iterated his promise to marry her at the Patnadevi Temple in Chalisgaon;(ii) The complainant completed her B.Sc. in Agriculture in 2002 and worked as a Junior Research Assistant. In 2007 she was selected as a Naib Tahsildar at Chalisgaon. In March 2009 she was appointed to the post of Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner at Mazgaon. The appellant would, it is alleged, come to meet her and lived with her in November 2009. During his visit, the complainant alleges that she refused to engage in sexual intercourse with the appellant, but "on the promise of marriage he forcibly established corporeal relationships";(iii) The complainant alleges that throughout 2010, the appellant visited her on multiple occasions and they engaged in sexual intercourse. When the appellant was posted in Gadchiroli, the complainant visited the appellant multiple times over the course of 2011. Each of these visits lasted four to five days during which the complainant resided with the appellant and they engaged in sexual intercourse. During these visits the complainant enquired about marriage and the appellant responded in the affirmative. In December 2011 the appellant visited her and resided in her house for four days;(iv) The appellant's elder sister was married on 5 February 2012. On 23 December 2012 the appellant visited her and forced her to engage in sexual intercourse. Afterwards, for the first time the appellant raised concerns about marrying her on the ground that their belonging to different castes would hinder the appellant's younger sister's marriage. In January 2013 the complainant visited the appellant in Nagpur, and the appellant also subsequently visited her. On both occasions they engaged in sexual intercourse;(v) During these years she missed her menstrual periods on several occasions. In 2013-14 the complainant and appellant jointly visited the hospital multiple times to check whether she was pregnant. In June 2013 the appellant was posted in Navi Mumbai and used to spend his weekends residing at the complainant's house. They regularly engaged in sexual intercourse during this period. Beginning in January 2014 the appellant raised concerns about marrying the complainant on the ground of her caste. This led to heated arguments. However, the appellant used to regularly visit her house at Panvel until March 2015, each time engaging in sexual intercourse with her;(vi) On 27 and 28 August 2015 and 22 October of 2015 the appellant sent the complainant certain WhatsApp messages. The complainant alleges that these messages were insulting and attacked her on the grounds of her caste. The messages stated:"You are bad for society. If shoe is kept on head, then head would get dirty. Reservation did not add any intelligence; You have got Govt. service with ease".(vii) In November 2015 for the first time the complainant threatened to file a police complaint against the appellant. The appellant promised to marry her after the marriage of his brother. At this time also they engaged in sexual intercourse; and(viii) On 9 March 2016 the appellant engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant against her will. Subsequently, the complainant was apprised of the fact that the appellant was engaged to another woman. The appellant informed the complainant that the woman he was engaged to was demanding Rs. two lakhs to break of the engagement. On 28 March 2016 the appellant re-iterated his promise to marry the complainant and arranged for her to speak to the woman he had been engaged to, to assure the complainant that the appellant was no longer in a relationship with her. Subsequently the complainant became aware that the appellant had married on 1 May 2016. On 17 May 2016 she filed the FIR.;