SHAIKH ABDUL REHMAN AHMED SHAIKH RIZWANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:44290
                                                                    Q42appln2465-26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        42 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2465 OF 2026

                          Shaikh Abdul Rehman Ahmed Shaikh Rizwan
                                            VERSUS
                             The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                               ...
            Mr. I. D. Maniyar h/for Mr. Gundre Suraj V, Advocate for Applicant
            Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for the Respondent-State
            Mr. Dr. Supriya Pansambal, Advocate for Respondent No.2


                                   CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                     Dated : 28th September, 2026
            PER COURT :-

            1.       Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for

            the State. The learned Advocate for the original victim is also present.


            2.       The present applicant is seeking quashment of the First

            Information Report bearing Crime No. 97 of 2026 dated 15.04.2026

            registered with Jinsi Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the

            offences punishable under Sections 64, 64(2)(m), 69, 3(5) of the

            Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The application is filed mainly on the

            ground that the respondent No.2 prosecutrix has agreed to withdraw

            the entire allegations constituting the present the present FIR against

            the applicant and on the ground that both the parties have now settled

            the dispute by entering into a compromise deed.


            3.       The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the

            applicant as well as respondent no.2 were major when the alleged


                                                                                 1 of 5
                                                          Q42appln2465-26

incident has taken place. Both of them were in love relationship and

the incident that has been reported as an offence under sections 64 and

69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita is, in fact, the consensual action

between the two adult individuals.      Now, since both of them have

amicably agreed to withdraw the allegations, the application be

allowed and the FIR impugned in this criminal application be quashed

and set aside.


4.       The learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2-

prosecurtirx has supported the contentions raised by the learned

Advocate for the applicant.


5.       The learned APP appearing for the State invites attention of

this Court to the earlier orders passed by this Court dated 16.07.2026

and 24.08.2026 and submits that this court has clarified that the

quashing of the petition will be looked into on the basis of the merits of

the matter and the terms of settlement between the parties will be

taken only one of the grounds for quashment.


6.       I have perused the entire charge-sheet and also the material

placed on record by way of compromise deed and the report of the

learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The allegations made in the

FIR about the offence pertaining to section 64 on the ground marriage,

which, according to the complainant, at that time, was a false promise

to marry and on account of that the consent of respondent no.2 was

                                                                     2 of 5
                                                          Q42appln2465-26

obtained for maintaining physical relationship by the applicant.      It is

then admitted position that respondent no.2 as well as the present

applicant were in a friendly relationship which culminated into a love

affair and subsequently both the adults indulged themselves in the

physical relation with each other. Perusing the settlement terms which

have been placed on record, respondent no.2 in the said settlement

terms, has categorically stated as below:


      “C. Both the First Party and the Second Party are adults and have
      been in a consensual romantic relationship for the past one year.
      The incidents referred to in the FIR arose out of their mutual
      relationship and personal differences, without any form of force,
      coercion, or non-consensual acts by the First Party.”

      Perusal of the above referred clause clearly specifies that both the

parties are adult and have been in consensual romantic relationship

since one year and the incident which has been alleged has taken place

on the basis of mutual relations.      The parties have further stated

explicitly in clause ‘H’ of the said terms, which reads as under:


      “H. The Second Party explicitly gives her free, full, and
      unconditional consent for quashing the FIR No. 97/2026 and all
      consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the same
      FIR(like a Chargesheet if any) against the First Party pending
      before any court, including the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature
      at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.”

This clause states that the victim has given her free will, full and


                                                                     3 of 5
                                                         Q42appln2465-26

unconditional consent for quashing of FIR bearing No. 97 of 2026,

which is the present offence in question with all consequential criminal

proceedings arising out of the said FIR.


7.       Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions

canvassed by both learned Advocates appearing for respondent no. 2

and the applicant and after perusing the material available on record

in the nature of charge-sheet as well as the consent terms, I am of the

opinion that this is not the case of any violent sexual assault. The

Hon’ble Apex Court has, time and again, clarified that ordinarily,

heinous offences cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement

between the parties, as such offences have ramifications in the society

at large. However, the present case is not of such a nature. It appears

that the parties were in a relationship but could not convert their

relationship into a marital bond due to certain personal differences.

The FIR was filed by the prosecutrix admitting that when the incident

has taken place, she was adult and the consent terms now recorded

clearly specify that it was an act of consensual relationship between

both the parties. Having regard to all these circumstances, I am inclined

to allow the present application. Hence, the following order:


                               ORDER



(a)   Criminal Application No. 2465 of 2026 stands allowed.


                                                                    4 of 5
                                                                   Q42appln2465-26


           (b)   First Information Report bearing bearing Crime No. 97 of 2026

                 dated 15.04.2026 registered with Jinsi Police Station, Chhatrapati

                 Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 64,

                 64(2)(m), 69, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and

                 consequential criminal proceedings are hereby quashed and set

                 aside.


           (d)   No orders as to costs.




                                                     (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                              5 of 5