VISHWANATH TAMMA MHAMANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                                      4-APL-99-2026 (CR) .doc


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 99 OF 2026

                   Vishwanath Tamma Mhamane
                             VERSUS
                The State of Maharashtra And Anr.
                                ...
Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Shivraj V. Patil (Shirgaonkar) a/w       Mr. Vikas B. Patil
(Shirgaonkar), Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Avinash A. Naik APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
                                 ...
                             CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

                                DATE       :    21st MAY, 2026
                                               [VACATION COURT]
P. C. :

1.        The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing

and setting aside the first information report bearing Crime No.453

of 2024, presented by respondent No.2/ complainant, registered

with Satara City Police Station, District Satara for the offences

punishable under Sections 376, 376(1)(n), 323, 504 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code, Section 9, 10, and 11 of the Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act, 2006 and Sections 4, 6, 8, 12, 17 and 21 of the

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and further

consequential proceedings arising out of said crime i.e. Special Case



Sajakali Jamadar                  1 of 6
                                                   4-APL-99-2026 (CR) .doc


No.105 of 2025, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Satara.

2.       The case of the prosecution is that the complainant alleges

that on 24.12.2023, the accused visited complainant’s residence

under the pretext of providing educational opportunities to minor

daughter. Under these false inducements, the accused persuaded the

complainant and his wife to accompany them to Shankargaon on

the night of 21.12.2023. Subsequently, on 31.12.2023, at

approximately 1:00 p.m. in Talewasti, Kolewadi, the accused

forcibly solemnized the marriage of the minor victim with one

Sachin B. Mhamane, despite being fully aware of her minority status

and in direct violation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The

complainant further contends that the accused subsequently

restrained the victim, subjected her to physical abuse and

harassment, and intimidated the complainant’s family with threats

of violence and death. Hence, lodged the report.

3.       Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the dispute

arises out of family discord between close relatives and that the

parties have amicably settled the matter through intervention of

elders. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 no longer wishes to

prosecute the proceedings and is ready to place the settlement on



Sajakali Jamadar                2 of 6
                                                   4-APL-99-2026 (CR) .doc


record before this Court. Learned Counsel further submits that no

independent material exists to indicate active involvement of the

Applicant in the alleged incident and continuation of the

proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is also

submitted that the Applicant has recently been selected for

appointment in the Maharashtra Police Force and continuance of the

prosecution would seriously prejudice his future career. It is

therefore prayed that this Court may exercise its inherent

jurisdiction and quash the impugned FIR and consequential

proceedings.

4.       Learned APP opposes the Application and submits that the

allegations pertain to serious offences and therefore the present case

does not warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court for

quashing of the proceedings merely on the basis of settlement

between the parties.

5.       Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 – original

complainant, however, submits that the parties have amicably

resolved the dispute and that the complainant has no objection if

the present Application is allowed. It is submitted that an affidavit

to that effect has also been filed on record.



Sajakali Jamadar                 3 of 6
                                                    4-APL-99-2026 (CR) .doc


6.       Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the record, it appears that the dispute arises out of

matrimonial and family discord between close relatives. The original

complainant has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that the

matter has been amicably settled and that he has no objection for

quashing of the impugned proceedings. The record further indicates

that continuation of the prosecution would only result in prolonging

bitterness between the parties, despite restoration of cordial

relations.

7.       This Court has also taken into consideration the fact that no

fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution in

the peculiar facts of the present case. The Applicant has recently

been selected for appointment in the Maharashtra Police Force and

pendency of the present proceedings is likely to cause serious

prejudice his future career prospects.

8.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Others v.

State of Punjab & Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , in appropriate cases

involving personal or private disputes, the High Court may exercise

its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice even in respect

of non-compoundable offences, where continuation of proceedings



Sajakali Jamadar                 4 of 6
                                                         4-APL-99-2026 (CR) .doc


would serve no useful purpose.

9.       Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly the amicable settlement between the parties and the

stand       of     the   original   complainant   supporting   the    present

Application, this Court finds that further continuation of the

proceedings would not advance the cause of justice and would

instead result in unnecessary continuation of criminal litigation

between the parties.

10.      Hence, following order

                                     ORDER

(i)      The criminal application is allowed.

(ii)     First Information Report (FIR) bearing Crime No.453 of 2024,

         presented by respondent No.2/ complainant, registered with

         Satara City Police Station, District Satara for the offences

         punishable under Sections 376, 376(1)(n), 323, 504 and 506

         of the Indian Penal Code, Section 9, 10, and 11 of the

         Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Sections 4, 6, 8,

         12, 17 and 21 of the Protection of Children From Sexual

         Offences Act, 2012, stands quashed and set aside as against

         the present applicant i.e. Vishwanath Tamma Mhamane.



Sajakali Jamadar                       5 of 6
                                                      4-APL-99-2026 (CR) .doc


(iii) Needless to state that non-compliance of aforesaid directions

         shall result into recall of this order without further reference

         to the Court.


                                       [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]




Sajakali Jamadar                  6 of 6