DINESH RAMCHANDRA MISTRIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                 1                  980criappln1162.26



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             980 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1162 OF 2026

                     DINESH RAMCHANDRA MISTRI
                                 VERSUS
              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                     ...
           Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Jain Vishwajeet Ramesh
            APP for Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. S.D. Ghayal
     Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Kiran P. Rathod h/f Mr.
                           Jadhav Alkesh Raju
                                     …


                          CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                          DATE    : 01.09.2026


PER COURT :


1.           Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties.



2.           The   present   applicant   seeks   quashing   of   the     First

Information Report bearing No. 349 of 2015 registered with MIDC Police

Station Jalgaon, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under

Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC)

and Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 (for short “POCSO”). He also seeks quashment of the charge-sheet

bearing No. 46 of 2017 filed before the learned Special District and

Sessions Judge at Jalgaon, which subsequently has been culminated

into the Special Case (POCSO) No. 13 of 2017 and the said special case

is also sought to be quashed.
                                  2                  980criappln1162.26



3.          After the First Information Report (for short “FIR”) was

lodged with the Police Station MIDC Jalgaon, the investigation was set in

motion at the behest of respondent No. 2, being mother of respondent

No. 3, respondent No. 2 who was minor at the time of the incident. The

FIR alleges that at the time when the incident took place the age of the

victim was 15 years old, having her date of birth as 06.04.2000.



4.          Perusal of the FIR, shows that the FIR was registered against

one unknown person, alleging that on the date of incident i.e.

16.12.2015 the victim was not found in the house and therefore, she was

searched in the surrounding areas and as she was not found there, the

offences were registered alleging that some unknown person has

abducted the victim. On investigation, it was revealed that the present

applicant had committed the alleged offence, and therefore, he came to

be arrested and subsequently, he was released on bail. The investigation

progressed and finally the charge-sheet has been filed for the above

referred offences. After taking the cognizance of Special Case No. 13 of

2017 is pending trial before the learned Special Court.



5.          The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant and

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have jointly submitted that there is amicable

settlement between the parties and the parties have appeared before the

learned Registrar, (Judicial) of this Court for the purpose of verification.

The report has been submitted in this Court on 03.07.2026 by the
                                  3                    980criappln1162.26



Registrar, (Judicial) mentioning that the verification has been carried

out, wherein, the parties have identified themselves and voluntarily

accepted the settlement and contents therein are expressed without any

pressure or coercion. The terms and conditions of the compromise deed

are also placed on record, which is dated 03.07.2026, wherein, it is

stated that the FIR was registered due to misunderstanding and

respondent Nos. 2 & 3 wants to withdraw the said complaint against the

present applicant.    It is further submitted that the applicant and

respondent No. 3, who is victim have performed marriage and out of the

said wedlock they have one daughter and one son. The applicant has

also assured that he will take care of the family and children till end. In

the light of the said consent terms the parties have approached this

Court for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings.



6.           The learned APP, however, has voluntarily opposed the

settlement by submitting that the alleged offence is a grievous and

heinous and committed against a child, who was 15 years of age on the

date   of   commissioning   of   the   offence.   He   submits    that      entire

investigation machinery was set         in motion, thereafter        even     the

machinery of the Court has also been utilized. He submits that presently

the trial is progressed, wherein, almost 11 witnesses have been

examined including the victim. On Court’s query he fairly submits that

the victim has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution

case. He requests that let the trial be concluded on its own merits and
                                 4                 980criappln1162.26



the present application on the basis of settlement may not be considered

for the trial Court’s order.



7.           The learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2

confirms the fact of settlement between the parties on the ground that

both of them are happily married since or more than 10 years and they

have 2 children born out of the said wedlock.       He submits that no

purpose would be served by dragging the applicant and parties to face

the agony of trial, when both of them are cohabiting together happily.



8.           Taking into consideration opposition that has been leveled

by the learned APP, it is desirable to note that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. the State of Utter

Pradesh and others in 2025 SCC Online SC 614, has quashed the FIR

and consequential proceedings by observing that when accused and

victim are happily cohabiting life, no purpose would be served by

continuing the prosecution and it will cause undue harassment to them.



9.           Similarly the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court

in the case in Shiva Channapa Odala v. The State of Maharashtra and

another, reported in 2023 DGLS (Bom) 682 and that proceeding has also

been quashed by observing that is will be contrary to the interest of the

justice to continue with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner

therein as both the parties will have equally put to hardship,
                                    5                  980criappln1162.26



particularly, when both of them decided for quashing by consent on the

ground of reasons cited in support of quashing. It is further observed

that there is no reason to continue with the prosecution in view of the

consent extended by the victim.



10.          In the light of the aforesaid settled principle, this Court finds

that the present one is the fit case to quash and set aside the FIR and

consequential proceedings thereby allowing the present application.

Hence the following order :

                                    ORDER

             (i)      The Criminal Application stands allowed in terms of
             prayer Clause (A).


             (ii)     The First Information Report bearing No. 349 of 2015
             registered with MIDC Police Station Jalgaon, District Jalgaon
             for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A,
             376(2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and Section
             5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
             2012 and the consequential charge-sheet along with Special
             Case (POCSO) No. 13 of 2017 are hereby quashed and set
             aside.


             (iii).        No order as to the costs.




                                              (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)


mahajansb/