Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case Review Dr. Dhruva Ram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors Facts

    Uploaded by

    ankit somani
    261 views2 pages
    This case involves a medical officer, Dr. Dhruva Ram Murlidhar Sonar, who entered into a sexual relationship with a woman, promising to marry her. However, he later married someone else. The woman filed criminal charges against him under rape and other statutes. The High Court rejected the appellant's plea to quash the FIR. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the FIR. The Supreme Court found that the sexual acts were done with the woman's consent, and a broken marriage promise alone does not constitute rape or misrepresentation of facts. The appellant did not have any mala fide intentions at the time. Therefore, the charges of rape could not

    Original Description:

    Case law

    Original Title

    CASE REVIEW

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a medical officer, Dr. Dhruva Ram Murlidhar Sonar, who entered into a sexual relationship with a woman, promising to marry her. However, he later married someone else. The woman filed criminal charges against him under rape and other statutes. The High Court rejected the appellant's plea to quash the FIR. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the FIR. The Supreme Court found that the sexual acts were done with the woman's consent, and a broken marriage promise alone does not constitute rape or misrepresentation of facts. The appellant did not have any mala fide intentions at the time. Therefore, the charges of rape could not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    261 views2 pages

    Case Review Dr. Dhruva Ram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors Facts

    Uploaded by

    ankit somani
    This case involves a medical officer, Dr. Dhruva Ram Murlidhar Sonar, who entered into a sexual relationship with a woman, promising to marry her. However, he later married someone else. The woman filed criminal charges against him under rape and other statutes. The High Court rejected the appellant's plea to quash the FIR. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the FIR. The Supreme Court found that the sexual acts were done with the woman's consent, and a broken marriage promise alone does not constitute rape or misrepresentation of facts. The appellant did not have any mala fide intentions at the time. Therefore, the charges of rape could not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case review

    Dr. Dhruva Ram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra &


    Ors

    Facts:

    The appellant was serving as a medical officer, Primary Health Centre at Toranmal,
    Dhadgaon Taluq, Nandurbar District, whereas the complainant was working as an Assistant
    Nurse at the same establishment. The complainant was a widow and get into the relationship
    with the appellant, who is a married man. But soon, they entered into the sexual activity and
    the appellant promises her to marry her. And they started living together in each other
    apartment. Soon, it was get to know by the complainant that the appellant has married the
    other women. And for her he proposed the name of his brother.
    The complainant filed the case against the appellant and co-accused under section 376(2)(b),
    420 read with section 34 of IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of SC, ST, 1989.

    Issue:

    Whether the appellant is liable for the charges framed against him and whether the quashing
    of FIR is not maintainable under section 482 of CrPC, 1973.

    Judgement Analysis:
    The judgement of the case goes in favour of the appellant and as a result FIR was quashed.
    The reason behind the judgement was giving by analysing the section 482 and the powers of
    the High Court related to it. By various judgements, it is known that the High Court has a
    wider power in section 482 and it can quash and hear the matter related to the FIR.
    In the case, judges said that it is not a forced rape done by the appellant and whatever is done
    is done with the consent of the complainant. And promise to marry is a breach of promise and
    not a misconception of fact. The appellant wants to marry her till the time he promises to the
    complainant and there was no mala fide intention of the appellant.
    Whatever happen in the case is not pre planned, as the complainant and the appellant was
    living with each other and sharing each and every thing and due knowing of the fact that the
    appellant marries other women, it does not give right to the complainant to sue the appellant
    for rape under section 376 of the IPC.
    The court also said that the High Court was unjustified in giving the reason that why they are
    not quashing the FIR because there are clear guidelines giving in the judgement of State of
    Haryana and ors. Vs Bhajan lal and Ors. About the seven points when the High Court can use
    the discretion of Section 482 in quashing of FIR.
    Judgement Matrix

    Authority Order Reason

    High Court 1. Scope of Section 482 State of Haryana and Ors. v.


    2. Decision of the High Court Bhajan Lal and ors.
    In seven categories, case is
    registered under Section 482.
    Yes, it was also held that “abuse
    the process of law” or “to secure
    the ends of justice” do not confer
    unlimited jurisdiction on the High
    Court.

    Rejected the plea of appellant for


    quashing of FIR.
    Supreme 1. Interpretation of Section 375 and Judges said that it is not a forced
    Court 376 of IPC rape done by the appellant and
    2. Interpretation of Section 90 whatever is done is done with the
    3. Cases cited consent of the complainant. And
    4. Decision of the court promise to marry is a breach of
    promise and not a misconception of
    fact. The appellant wants to marry
    her till the time he promises to the
    complainant and there was no mala
    fide intention of the appellant.

    In Section 90 consent is not defined


    but it defined what not consent is.

    In Deepal Gulati vs State of


    Haryana.
    Uday vs State of Karnataka.

    Yes, appellant win the case, as FIR


    was quashed because of the
    reasoning giving the Interpretation
    of Section 375 and 376 of IPC

    You might also like