Bombay High Court
SUNNY SATISH PATOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The application is allowed and the FIR, charge‑sheet and special case are quashed.
Summary
The applicant, Sunny Patole, filed an application to quash FIR No.442 of 2016 and related charge‑sheet and special case pending before the Sessions Court, which alleged offences under IPC, POCSO Act and the IT Act. The victim, respondent No.2, submitted an affidavit stating she was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, does not recall it, is now married to another accused, and does not wish to prosecute. The trial of other co‑accused in a related special case had earlier resulted in acquittal because the victim turned hostile. The applicant was not present for that trial and a supplementary charge‑sheet was later filed against him. Relying on the victim’s current unwillingness to prosecute and the earlier acquittal, the Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and pending criminal proceedings should be quashed on the ground that the victim has withdrawn cooperation and the co‑accused were acquitted.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 376(A), 506
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66-E
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 11(i), 11(v), 12, 3, 4
Subjects
- quash
- FIR
- victim affidavit
- POCSO
- rape
- acquittal
- criminal procedure
- supplementary charge-sheet
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41614-DB
-1-
965-APPLN-4486-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4486 OF 2025
Sunny s/o Satish Patole,
Age-31 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Talreja Nagar, Piwala Bangla,
Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. … Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Sadar Bazar,
Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
2. XYZ … Respondents
......
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Prasad Balasaheb Kadam
APP for Respondent - State : Mr. D. J. Patil
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ganesh P. Darandale
......
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATED : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026
ORDER :
1. Heard learned Advocate for applicant, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent – State and
also learned Advocate for respondent No.2.
2. The present application is filed seeking quashing of the
FIR bearing No. 442 of 2016, dated 12.08.2016, registered with
Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna, Taluka and District Jalna, for
offences punishable under Sections 376(A), 506 read with Section
-2-
965-APPLN-4486-2025
34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3, 4, 11(i) & (v) and 12
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act)
and under Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000
and also the consequential charge-sheet and Special Case No. 228
of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Special Court and
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna along with all the consequential
orders passed therein.
3. At the outset, it is submitted that respondent No.2, who
is the victim of the offence, has filed an affidavit dated 02.09.2026
today in the proceedings, stating that, when the incident has taken
place, the victim was a minor and the crime is old, and she does not
remember the incident. She further states that, the victim has
married with accused No.1 Prashant and is happily residing with
him. She states that she has no knowledge as to how the name of
the applicant came to be recorded in the FIR. However, she
reiterates that, now she is married to accused No.1 and residing
happily at the matrimonial house with her husband, children and
in-laws, she does not want to prosecute the criminal proceedings
against the present applicant.
4. The other factor which needs to be referred to is that
the trial which was conducted against the other co-accused persons
-3-
965-APPLN-4486-2025
being Special Case (Child) No. 62 of 2016 has also culminated in
acquittal by judgment and order dated 03.01.2018. Even the Trial
Court, in the said judgment, has recorded that the victim has not
supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. On
that basis, acquittal has been granted to all the other accused
persons.
5. The record indicates that the present applicant, at the
relevant time, was not available for trial, and therefore,
supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against him and the
present case, being separated, is being tried against the present
applicant.
6. Without considering the merits of the matter, taking
into consideration that the trial has culminated in acquittal and the
affidavit dated 02.09.2026 filed by respondent No.2-victim before
this Court, as recorded above, there is no reason why the applicant
should be put to the agony of facing the entire trial when the victim
herself does not want to proceed with the prosecution.
7. In light of the above, the application stands allowed.
Hence, the following order :
-4-
965-APPLN-4486-2025
ORDER
(I) The Criminal Application stands allowed.
(II) The FIR bearing No.442 of 2016, dated 12.08.2016,
registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna, Taluka and
District Jalna, along with the consequential charge-sheet, Special
Case No. 228 of 2025 pending before the District and Sessions
Judge, Jalna as well as order issuing process and consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside.
(III) The interim applications and interim reliefs, if any,
stands disposed of.
(HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
JUDGE
Tandale
Checking your session…