JUDGMENT : M.G. GIRATKAR, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Applicant prayed to quash and set aside FIR vide Crime No. 173/2017 registered with Police Station, Mankapur on the complaint of non-applicant no. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that Police Station Officer, Mankapur registered the offences punishable under Section 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant on the false report of the non-applicant no. 2. It is falsely alleged in the report that the applicant promised to marry her and on that pretext, he established sexual relations with non-applicant no. 2 and committed rape on her. The applicant is doing his job as Business Officer in Ratna Sagar Private Limited, Branch at Gujrat. He is falsely involved in the crime and, therefore, prayed to quash the FIR. 3. Heard learned counsel Shri N. S. Warulkar for the applicant. He has submitted that allegations made in the FIR, if taken as it is, then also, it is not an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his submissions, he pointed out decision in Criminal Application (APL) No. 434/2017. At last, learned counsel submitted that FIR registered against the applicant be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jaipurkar for the non-applicant no. 1 with Ms. Sapkal, learned counsel for non-applicant no. 2. Learned counsel for non-applicants submitted that the applicant did sexual intercourse with non-applicant no. 2 under the promise of marriage. She is nearest relative of the applicant. Believing the promise of applicant, she allowed him to do sexual intercourse. Documents of marriage were prepared. When date was fixed for marriage in the Court, applicant remained absent, therefore, non-applicant no. 2 lodged the report. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the consent given by non-applicant no. 2 for sexual intercourse was under the promise of marriage by the applicant. The consent obtained was not consent at all as defined under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out decision in the case of Nitin Vs. State of Maharashtra [2014 ALL MR(Cri) 2383] and decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Naushad [ (2013) 16 SCC 651 ]. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out decision in the case of Nitin Vs. State of Maharashtra [2014 ALL MR(Cri) 2383] and decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Naushad [ (2013) 16 SCC 651 ]. 6. We have gone through the report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2. From the perusal of report, it is clear that the applicant is brother-in-law of maternal uncle of non-applicant no. 2. On 11-1-2011, there was marriage of the sister of non-applicant no. 2 at the house of her maternal uncle Rajesh Wardhe. That time applicant was also present in the marriage. 7. The applicant started contacting her on the mobile phone of her father. Her father purchased mobile for non-applicant no. 2. The applicant was always visiting to Nagpur for office work. He used to call the non-applicant no. 2 to Eternity Mall. Thereafter in the year 2012, he promised to marry her. She also accepted the offer. The applicant was always calling her and taking her to lonely places. Applicant insisted her for sexual intercourse saying that he would definitely marry with her and did sexual intercourse near Saint Marry School. 8. Applicant had taken her to Chikhaldara. Applicant did sexual intercourse for 45 times in the hotel at Chikhaldara. He called her in the Hotel Legend In. The applicant did sexual intercourse with her. The non-applicant no. 2 always allowed him for sexual intercourse because he is the nearest relative and promised to marry her. During that period, applicant and the non-applicant no. 2 contacted one Advocate and filled marriage forms. They went to Office of Registrar of Marriage on 4-3-2017. Witnesses signed on the forms. Applicant told their counsel to get the date for marriage but thereafter he was avoiding to come to Nagpur. The non-applicant no. 2 enquired to their Advocate, then he replied that the applicant himself is avoiding to get the date for marriage. When the non-applicant no. 2 came to know that she was cheated by the applicant, her consent was obtained under the false promise of marriage, then she lodged the report in Police Station, Mankapur on 10-8-2017. On her report, crime for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered. 9. When the non-applicant no. 2 came to know that she was cheated by the applicant, her consent was obtained under the false promise of marriage, then she lodged the report in Police Station, Mankapur on 10-8-2017. On her report, crime for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the same case, the Division Bench of this Court quashed the FIR in Criminal Application (APL) No. 434/2017. We have gone through the said judgment. The Division Bench was not pointed out judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Naushad (cited supra). Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under : “Taking advantage of close relationship between families of accused and prosecutrix, accused often used to stay at prosecutrix's home and by procuring her consent on false promise of marrying her, indulged in sexual acts with her and when she became pregnant, refused to marry her. Accused committed breach of trust of prosecutrix based on relationship and brazen fraud just to appease his lust. Maximum sentence of life imprisonment appropriate.” 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra) has held as under : “On overall consideration of the facts and circumstances and the submissions made, we are of the view that at this stage, it would not be possible nor appropriate to decide whether there was a promise of marriage, which was false even from the inception or there was a subsequent refusal by the applicant as claimed by respondent no. 2 or for the matter of that, there was no such relationship and the complaint is actuated by some ulterior motive. These are essentially questions of fact which cannot be gone into or decided in an application of the present nature. The case would not fall under any of the categories, as set out above, in which this Court would be required to exercise inherent powers to quash complaint and the FIR. For these reasons, we are of the view that the application deserves to be dismissed. Needless to mention that, we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy as the observations are essentially of a prima facie nature looking to the stage at which the matter stands. For these reasons, we are of the view that the application deserves to be dismissed. Needless to mention that, we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy as the observations are essentially of a prima facie nature looking to the stage at which the matter stands. Accordingly, the criminal application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.” 11. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the non-applicant no. 2 consented for sexual intercourse and, therefore, it is not an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. At this stage, it was a voluntary consent or it was obtained by the applicant under the misrepresentation of facts saying that he would marry her is a question of fact which cannot be gone into or decided in an application of the present nature. The case would not fall under any of the categories as set out in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335]. Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the application. In the result, the application is dismissed. On pronouncement of judgment, Shri Warulkar, learned counsel for applicant, seeks stay to effect and operation of this judgment contending that by interim order of this Court, State was directed not to file charge-sheet pending the criminal application. In view of order of dismissal of present criminal application, we do not find any reason to continue the interim relief. The prayer of learned Counsel for applicant for stay is thus rejected. Fees payable to learned counsel appointed for non-applicant no. 2 is quantified as Rupees Three Thousand.