JUDGMENT : 1. This application claims quashment of First Information Report No. 273/2013, dated 21.06.2013, registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Wardha, against the applicant. The application was amended and Charge-sheet bearing No. 83/2014 filed on 26.03.2014 in continuation of first information report is made the subject matter of challenge in this application along with the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 204/2014, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha. 2. On 13.11.2014, this Court granted Rule and passed an interim order, which is reproduced below; "Coram : B.R. Gavai & V.M. Deshpande, JJ. Dated : November 13, 2014 1. Rule. 2. Heard Mr. Firdos Mirza, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A.B.Moon, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2. 3. Taking into consideration the allegations in the first information report on its face value, it would reveal that it is the case of the first informant that she and the applicant were working in the same office. She had left her husband and was residing with her son. The applicant knowing this, has developed intimacy with her and induced her to have sexual relationship with him. The applicant also used to take her at various places including Bor Dharan and Shegaon for having sexual contacts with her. The wife of the applicant having knowledge of the same, came to the house of the first informant and created a scene. It is the case of the first informant that having done this, the applicant himself addressed a notice to the first informant and as such being mentally and physically oppressed, she has lodged the first information report. 4. It could thus be undisputedly seen from the version of the first informant herself that when the applicant made false promise to her of marriage, she was having a subsisting marriage so also the applicant was having a subsisting marriage. 5. In that view of the matter, we find that the applicant has made out a case for grant of interim relief. There shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (aii). 6. Mr. R.S. Nayak, learned APP waives notice for non-applicant No.1 and Mr. A.B. Moon, learned counsel waives notice for non-applicant No.2." 3. Shri Mirza, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prashant Bharti vrs. There shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (aii). 6. Mr. R.S. Nayak, learned APP waives notice for non-applicant No.1 and Mr. A.B. Moon, learned counsel waives notice for non-applicant No.2." 3. Shri Mirza, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prashant Bharti vrs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1123 (S.C.) and has urged that the Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceedings instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 328 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He has also relied upon the observations in paragraph 16 of the said decision, wherein the Apex Court has taken into consideration the fact that the complainant/prosecutrix was married and her marriage subsisted on the dates on which she alleged the physical relations with the accused and in such situation, the Apex Court has held that the assertion made by the complainant/prosecutrix that she was induced to a physical relationship by the accused on the basis of a promise to marry her stands irrefutably falsified. 4. Shri Moon, the learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant No.2 – complainant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kirthi @ Karthick vrs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamul Nadu, reported in 2013 (7) Scale 777 and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Omprakash Agrawal vrs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2383. He has urged that it is not the stand of the applicant-accused that it was a case of consent, but the stand is that, the accused was falsely implicated by the Non-applicant No.2 and whether the allegations are false or not, is required to be gone into by the trial Court in the proceedings of trial. He submits that the Court has to refuse to interfere in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. There is no dispute that the complainant-respondent No.2 had developed physical relations with the applicant at several places and at several times. He submits that the Court has to refuse to interfere in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. There is no dispute that the complainant-respondent No.2 had developed physical relations with the applicant at several places and at several times. Shri Moon, the learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant No.2 admits that the Non-applicant No. 2 was married woman on the date on which the applicant-accused is said to have developed physical relationship with her and that her marriage subsisted as on all those dates. Keeping aside the fact that the complainant was not knowing that the applicant was married, it was not expected of her to be in physical relationship with the person other than the husband, particularly when she herself was a married woman and her marriage subsisted on such dates. The ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Prashant Bharti's case squarely applies to the facts of the present case to hold that the assertion made by the Non-applicant no.2/complainant that she was induced to a physical relationship by the applicant-accused on the basis of a promise to marry her stands irrefutably falsified. 6. The two decisions relied upon by Shri Moon would have no applicability in the present case for the reason that in the decision of the Apex Court, the accused and the complainant were unmarried, whereas in the decision of this Court, there was a decree for divorce subsisting on the date of incident in favour of the prosecutrix. 7. In the result, this application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (ai), which are reproduced below : (a) quash the impugned FIR No. 273/2013, dated 21.06.2013 registered u/s. 376 of IPC at Police Station Wardha City, Wardha against the applicant. (ai) quash and set aside the charge sheet bearing no. 83/14 filed on 26.03.2014 in continuation of FIR No. 273/2013 registered on 21.06.2013. 8. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No orders as to costs.