Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

KIRAN BABAN RATHOD AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that, in the interest of justice, a consent quashing of the FIR and related proceedings is permissible and allowed the application.

Summary

The applicants filed a criminal application seeking the quashing of FIR No. 251 of 2016 and related proceedings. The FIR alleged offences under IPC sections 366, 363, 323, 504, 506 and POCSO Act sections 8 and 12. Respondent No. 2, who is married to the victim (accused No. 2), along with the petitioner, consented to the quashing, stating that they wished to protect their children from the stigma of the case. The Court, after hearing the parties and noting the mutual consent, held that consent quashing was permissible in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the Court ordered the FIR and the pending Special Case No. 29 of 2026 before the District and Sessions Court, Shirur, to be quashed and set aside. The application was allowed and disposed.

Issues considered

  • Whether a criminal application for quashing an FIR and consequent proceedings can be entertained and granted on the basis of consent of the parties involved.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • quashing of FIR
  • consent quashing
  • criminal procedure
  • IPC
  • POCSO
  • child sexual offences
  • high court

Judgment

                                                                     56. CRI APL-1285-18.odt


Amberkar

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1285 OF 2018

           Kiran Baban Rathod & Ors.                        .. Applicants
                      Versus
           The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                  .. Respondent
                                       ....................
            Mr. Shailesh Kharat a/w Mr. Onkar Chaudhari & Mr. Praveen Taula,
              Advocates for Applicants
            Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for State
            Mr. Vinod Kendre, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
                                           ...................
                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Kharat, learned Advocate for Applicants; Mr.

           Karmakar, learned APP for State and Mr. Kendre, learned Advocate for

           Respondent No. 2.


           2.       Present Application is filed seeking quashing and setting aside of

           the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.


           3.       Respondent No. 2 before me is married to the victim in the

           present crime who is arraigned as accused No. 2. Both of them are

           before the Court.      They were both majors.         First informant in the

           present case happens to be Respondent No. 3. Averments made in the

           Application are to the effect that since both of them are happily




                                                                                     1 of 2
                                                                                    56. CRI APL-1285-18.odt


           married and are having children, the mother also does not have any

           grievance for quashing the present proceedings.


           4.          The parties before me are well-educated and are desirous of

           ensuring that their children grow up in an environment free from the

           ignominy associated with the present criminal proceedings.


           5.          I have interacted with Respondent No.2 who is present in Court

           before me as also with the Petitioner. Both of them jointly persuaded

           me to consider the Application and pass appropriate orders by consent

           quashing.


           6.          Considering the aforesaid and after hearing learned APP, I am of

           the opinion that the request made by the parties for consent quashing

           has to be allowed in the interest of justice.                         Hence, Application is

           allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:-

                      "a.              This Hon'ble Court may pleased to quash the FIR No. 251 of 2016
                                       for offences under Section 366, 363, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and
                                       Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
                                       Offences Act, 2012 registered with the Sikrapur Police Station, Pune
                                       and further proceedings arising out of it on such terms and
                                       conditions this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

           7.          Further, the consequential proceedings, i.e. Special Case No. 29

           of 2026, pending before the District and Sessions Court, Shirur, are

           also quashed and set aside.


           8.          Application is allowed and disposed.


Amberkar                                                            [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                        Digitally signed
           RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
                    MOHAN
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.24
                        14:56:17 +0530
                                                                                                     2 of 2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.