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