Bombay High Court
AKASH ALIAS GOKUL SURESH BODKEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that the kidnapping complaint does not survive because the prosecutrix is a competent adult who consented, and therefore the FIR is quashed.
Summary
The applicant, Akash Bodke, sought to quash an FIR filed for kidnapping of his wife, the prosecutrix, who is a major aged 18 years and 25 days. The prosecutrix had married the applicant and consented to the relationship, rendering the kidnapping allegation untenable. The court observed that a complaint of kidnapping cannot survive when the alleged victim is a competent adult who has given consent. Consequently, the FIR dated 21/06/2026 under section 137(2) of the Bombay Police Act was set aside. The court also ordered the release of two seized vehicles to the applicant and his friend, and directed each party to pay costs of Rs.5,000.
Issues considered
- Whether a kidnapping complaint survives when the alleged victim is a major who has consented to the alleged act.
- Whether the FIR filed under section 137(2) of the Bombay Police Act can be quashed on the basis of the victim's consent and marriage.
- Whether the seized vehicles should be released to the applicant pending the disposition of the application.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Police Act, 1951 — s. 137(2)
Subjects
- kidnapping
- consent
- major
- marriage
- quash FIR
- anticipatory bail
- vehicle seizure
- costs
Judgment
1 apl 1487 of 2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1487 OF 2026
Akash alias Gokul Suresh Bodke .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Ajinkya Vilas Taskar a/w. Mr. Gaurav Ugale, Advocate for
Applicant.
Ms. Anuja Gotad, APP for the Respondent No.1–State.
Mr. Vaibhav Balasaheb Deokar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Jitendra Patil, API, Sinnar Police Station, Nashik, present.
................…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 21, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Taskar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Ms. Phad,
APP for the Respondent No.1–State and Mr. Deokar, learned Advocate
for Respondent No.3.
2. I have perused the Aadhaar Card of the prosecutrix, who is
arraigned as Respondent No. 3. She is a major, having completed 18
years and 25 days as on today. Last week, she got married to the
Applicant. The Applicant was granted Anticipatory Bail by the learned
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
Sessions Court, vide order passed on 11 th August, 2026. The Applicant
2026.08.25
20:09:49
+0530 Rajeshri Aher
1 of 3
1 apl 1487 of 2026.odt
and the prosecutrix are both before me. I have interacted with them in
the open Court with the able assistance of the learned Prosecutor
appearing for Respondent No. 1–State. The marriage certificate and all
other proofs of marriage are appended to the Petition. Nothing further
survives in the Petition. The Informant is the father of Respondent No.
3. He is a party; however, considering the age of the prosecutrix and
since she is a major, the complaint of kidnapping would no longer
survive. The Application, therefore, deserves to be allowed, as there is
no impediment in allowing the same and no purpose whatsoever
would be served in continuing with the prosecution for the present
offence. The Application is therefore allowed.
3. The learned Advocate for the Applicant informs the Court that
two vehicles bearing registration Nos. MH-15-JW-6903 and MH-05-BS-
2447 are seized by the prosecution, which are presently kept in the
custody of Sinnar Police Station, MIDC, Nashik. The Senior Inspector
of the said Police Station is directed by this Court to release the
vehicles to the Applicant, out of which one belongs to the Applicant
and one belongs to a friend of the Applicant, namely, Aabaji Ramaji
Karad, on the basis of a server copy of this order.
4. Considering that the criminal law was set in motion, I direct
both the parties to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/-, each to the Kirtikar Law
Rajeshri Aher
2 of 3
1 apl 1487 of 2026.odt
Library, High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai, within ap eriod of one
week from today.
5. The Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses
(a) and (b), which read as under:
“(a) To allow present Criminal Application.
(b) To quash and set aside impugned F.I.R. dated
21/06/2026 in connection with C. R. No. 218/2026
registered for the offences punishable under section
137(2) B.N.S. registered at M.I.D.C. Sinnar Police
Station.”
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Rajeshri Aher
3 of 3
Checking your session…