Umesh Ramesh Marathe v. State of Maharashtra & Priti Madhav Rayate

1. The State of Maharashtra ] Through the Indira Nagar Police Station, ] Nashik, CR No. I 336 of 2016 ]

2. Priti Madhav Rayate ] Age 25 yrs, Occ. Service, ] R/o. Dwarkadhish Bungalow, ] Valsad Phata, Opp. Weigh Bridge, ] Dindori Vani Road, Dindori, ] Dist. Nashik ] … Respondents Mr. Shekhar Ingawale i/b. Ms. Smita Gaidhani for Applicant. Smt. Prajakta P. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. Tushar Sonawane for Respondent No.2. CORAM: A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE: 26th JUNE, 2025 VINOD MAYEKAR JUDGMENT ( Per: A.S. Gadkari, J. ):- 1) By this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Applicant (Accused No.2) in C.R.No. I 336 of 2016 dated 17th November, 2016, registered with Indira Nagar Police Station, Nashik for the offence punishable under Sections 376(1), 313 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is seeking quashing of the said First Information Report (FIR) and further proceedings arising thereof i.e. the charge-sheet, qua the Applicant.

2) Record indicates that, by an Order dated 19th April 2023, the Application was Admitted and interim relief in favour of Applicant was granted.

3) Heard Mr. Ingawale, learned counsel for the Applicant, Smt. P.P. Shinde, learned AP.P. for Respondent No.1, State and Mr. Sonawane, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. Perused entire record produced before us.

4) It is the prosecution’s case that, Respondent No.2 was earlier married in the year 2010, however immediately thereafter she was divorced. Subsequently, she shifted to Mumbai for the purpose of her vocation. Mr. Ajinkya S. Chumbhale (Accused No.1) was Facebook friend of Mr. Kiran i.e. the cousin brother of Respondent No.2. She therefore got acquainted with Mr. Ajinkya S. Chumbhale (Accused No.1) in March 2013. Their acquaintance was subsequently blossomed into a love affair. It is alleged that, Mr. Ajinkya S. Chumbhale by extending promise to marry Respondent No.2, established physical relations with her. The said relations continued till April 2016. It is alleged that, Accused No.1 induced Respondent No.2 to join his company at various places at Nashik and Mumbai, to reside with him in various hotels and established physical relations with her. It is further alleged that, in the month of February 2015, the Respondent No.2 was pregnant due to her relations with Mr. Ajinkya S. Chumbhale. The Accused No.1 advised Respondent No.2 to undergo curating procedure for abortion. Mr.Ajinkya Chumbhale promised Respondent No.2 to perform marriage with her and therefore the Respondent No.2 willingly accepted the suggestion of the Accused No.1. That, on 21st February, 2015, Accused No.1 admitted Respondent No.2 in Life Care Hospital of Applicant at Nashik. While admitting to hospital, Mr. Ajinkya S. Chumbhale gave name of Respondent No.2 as ‘Mrs.Priti Patil’. At the time of her admission in the said hospital, Accused No.1 gave the address of his friend viz., Mr.Kiran Aher. It is alleged that, the Applicant performed the procedure of curating against the wish of Respondent No.2. It is alleged that, the Applicant performed the said medical procedure upon Respondent No.2 without her consent. After performing the said medical procedure, Accused No.1 kept Respondent No.2 at Hotel Express Inn at Nashik for eight days. Subsequently, the relations between Mr.Ajinkya S. Chumbhale (Accused No.1) and Respondent No.2, got soured and the Accused No.1 started avoiding Respondent No.2. That, Accused No.1 also extended serious threats to Respondent No.2. In this brief premise, present crime is registered.

5) Mr. Sonawane, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 submitted that, the consent of Respondent No.2 while undergoing the medical treatment of curating was not voluntary. The Accused No.1 in connivance with Applicant, forced the Respondent No.2 to undergo the said medical procedure. He submitted that, Applicant did not verify the identity and credentials of Respondent No.2, before performing the medical procedure on her. He therefore prayed that, the present Application may not be entertained and be dismissed.

6) A minute perusal of F.I.R. itself clearly indicates that, the Accused No.1 persuaded Respondent No.2 to undergo the medical procedure of curating and therefore the Respondent No.2 willingly agreed for it. On 21st February, 2015, while admitting the Respondent No.2 in Life Care Hospital at Nashik, which is owned by Applicant, it is the prime accused Mr.Ajinkya S. Chumbhale who gave name of the Respondent No.2 as ‘Mrs.Priti Patil’ and got her admitted. The medical case papers discloses that, the Respondent No.2 has signed the ‘Form – C’ as prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 as ‘Priti Patil’.

6.1) The Admission & Discharge Form issued by Life Care Hospital mentions as under:- Provisional Diagnosis – P V bleeding. Final Diagnosis: incomplete abortion ----> check curettage done by MVA.

6.2) The record further indicates that, in the medical notes dated 21st February, 2015, at 11.15 a.m., an endorsement is made by Dr. Arti. In the column of Suggestions, it is mentioned as under:- ‘NBM Consent for emergency check Curettage by MVA Inform OT Inform anaesthetist’

6.3) On the said paper, there is another endorsement at 12:00 p.m. which reads as under:- ‘Procedure Notes:- Emergency MVA done on 21/2/15 D/B – Dr. Arti Batavia SUA by Dr. Jagtap Incomplete abortion with PV bleeding.’ 6.4) It is thus apparent that, on the date of her admission in the Applicant’s Hospital, the Respondent No.2 was suffering from the aforenoted medical emergency and therefore she was immediately treated by the Applicant.

7) In this precise background, the contention of learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 that the Applicant ought to have verified the identity and credentials of Respondent No.2, before taking her to the operation theater or labour room needs to be rejected out-rightly. If the Applicant would have adopted the said method as submitted by Respondent No.2’s Advocate, Respondent No.2 perhaps would have suffered greater medical complications. We therefore do not wish to comment any further on the said submission of the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

8) Perusal of the entire record clearly indicates that, the Applicant performed the said medical procedure bonafide and as per the Rules and Regulations prescribed by the Medical Council. It is apparent that, the Applicant performed the said medical procedure with due diligence and without causing any further medical problems and/or complications to the Respondent No.2. It is the reason, after undergoing the said procedure, the Respondent No.2 stayed at Hotel Express Inn, for a period of eight days thereafter.

9) In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that, no offence at all as contemplated under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the Applicant.

10) It appears to us that, the Applicant has been unnecessarily roped in the present crime by the Respondent No.2 and the investigating agency without considering basic facts, has mechanically submitted chargesheet against the Applicant.

11) In view of the above discussion, C.R.No. I-336 of 2016 registered with Indira Nagar Police Station, Nashik and all consequential proceedings thereof, i.e. including charge-sheet, qua the Applicant, is quashed.