MAHESH SHIVAJI HIVARDE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:38166
                                                                     966appln1700-26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       966 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1700 OF 2026

                              Mahesh Shivaji Hivarde And Others
                                           VERSUS
                            The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                              ...
            Mr. Muneshwar G K, Advocate for the Applicant
            Ms. Ashlesha Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State
            Mr. S. N. Dudhate, Advocate for Respondent No.2
            Mr. Akash S. Narwade, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Victim


                                  CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                    Dated : 18th August, 2026
            PER COURT :-

            1.       The present application is filed for quashing the First

            Information Report bearing Crime No. 160 of 2025 dated 24.05.2026

            registered with Waluj Police Station,     District Aurangabad for the

            offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96 of of the Bhartiya Nyaya

            Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 12 and 17 of the Protection of Child from

            Sexual Offences Act and consequential charge-sheet and the criminal

            case alongwith the order of taking cognizance.


            2.       It is the case of the prosecution that Respondent No.3, who is

            daughter of original complainant/respondent no.2 was found missing

            from the house on 23.05.2025 and the fact of she being missing from

            the house was noticed by the elder daughter of the present complainant.

            The victim was not found inspite of being        searched in the nearby

            locality and at the time of commissioning of the offence, the victim was

                                                                               1 of 5
                                                          966appln1700-26

17 years old. The complaint, therefore, came to be lodged for the above

referred offence. The investigation proceeded and the present

applicants came to be arrested in connected with the offence.


3.       It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant no. 1 was

acquainted with respondent no.3 and they are relatives of each other.

The complaint itself discloses that there was love relationship between

applicant no.1 and respondent no.3 and after respondent no.3 attained

majority, applicant no.1 and respondent no.3 got married on

06.02.2026. The said marriage married has been duly registered on

27.03.2026 before the competent authority and since then, they are

residing together.


4.       The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submits

that applicant no.1 and respondent no.3 had appeared before the

Registrar (Judicial) on 17.07.2026 and have tendered their joint

purshis. The learned Registrar (Judicial) has verified the contents of the

compromise terms and has also verified the fact from respondent no.3

as to whether the consent terms has been arrived at under any force

and coercion. The report submitted by the learned Registrar discloses

that the compromise between the parties is voluntary and applicant

no.1 and respondent no.3 have amicably settled their dispute and

differences and are leading peaceful matrimonial life. Paragraph No.

of the compromise terms also refers that there is no objection of


                                                                     2 of 5
                                                        966appln1700-26

respondent no.3, if the first information report and the consequential

proceedings bearing Special Case No. 38 of 2026 pending on the file of

the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur

District Aurangabad are quashed by this Court.


5.       The learned Advocate for the applicants also referred to the

compromise pursis and submits that there is no fruitful purpose that

can be achieved by keeping the proceedings pending against the

present applicants in a situation where the matter has been amicably

settled and the parties are leading peaceful life. He submitted that

applicant no.1 and respondent no.3 are happily married with each

other and they are cohabiting together.


6.       The learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.3 admits

the joint compromise and terms mentioned therein and reiterates that

respondent no.3 does not wish to continue with the proceedings. The

learned APP,   however, opposes the application by stating that the

original complainant is respondent no.2, who is father of respondent

no.3, as the offence was registered when respondent no.3 was minor. In

the absence of respondent no.2, the offence cannot be quashed and

therefore, she prays that opportunity be given to represent before this

Court.


7.       I have gone through the contents of the first information

report and also perused the joint compromise pursis that has been

                                                                  3 of 5
                                                       966appln1700-26

placed before this Court. The admitted position is that when the

offence was registered, respondent no.3 was seventeen and half years

of age and she, on her own, has left the house of her parents.

Admittedly, there was love relationship between respondent no.3 and

applicant no.1. As respondent no.3 was not found in the house and in

the nearby vicinity, respondent no.2, being father, had lodged the FIR

under the offence mentioned in the FIR. No doubt, the offence of

POCSO Act are attracted for the reason that respondent no.3, at the

relevant time, was minor, but the fact is that now respondent no.3 is

major and have married with applicant no.1 and the said marriage is

also solemnized and duly registered with the competent authority.

There is no necessity to dispute the aforesaid fact.


8.       The joint compromise terms clearly shows that applicant No.1

and respondent no.3 are cohabiting happily and more importantly, the

applicant no.1 and respondent no.3 are in a matrimonial relationship

and are leading their future life together. In such background, merely

respondent no.2 does not agree to the marriage of respondent no.3

with applicant no.1 as well as does not want to be part to the

compromise will      not preclude this      court from quashing the

proceedings. The offence was registered for the reason that respondent

no.3, at the relevant time, was minor, but now, respondent no.3 is

major and she has taken her own decision not to proceed with the



                                                                 4 of 5
                                                                     966appln1700-26

           matter including the present criminal proceedings.


           9.         In view of the above and in the light of the compromise and

           matrimonial relationship between applicant no.1 and respondent no.3,

           no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings pending. Hence,

           the following order:


                                             ORDER


           (i)    Criminal Application No. 1700 of 2026 stands allowed.

           (ii)   The FIR bearing Crime No. 160 of 2025, dated 24.05.2026,
                  registered with Waluj Police Station, District Aurangabad, for
                  the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the
                  Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 12 and 17 of the
                  Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, along
                  with the consequential charge-sheet, consequential criminal
                  proceedings being Special Case No. 38 of 2026 pending on the
                  file of the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions
                  Judge, Gangapur, District Aurangabad, and the order taking
                  cognizance, are hereby quashed and set aside.


           (iii) No order as to costs.




                                                       (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                               5 of 5