Bombay High Court
Sanjay Kumar ShahversusThe State of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that, given the consensual nature of the relationship and the absence of evidence establishing a prima facie case, the applicants must be discharged.
Summary
The applicants, Sanjay Kumar Shah and his wife Asha Sanjay Shah, were charged in Sessions Case No. 669 of 2024 for alleged sexual assault and harassment of a complainant, with the prosecution alleging that the husband promised employment to the complainant’s relatives to induce sexual relations and that the wife threatened the complainant. The applicants contended that the relationship was consensual, that there was a significant delay of seven months in filing the FIR, and that no evidence linked the wife to the alleged harassment. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the applicants’ discharge application, finding a prima facie case. On revision, the High Court examined the delay, the consensual nature of the relationship, and the lack of material implicating the wife, concluding that the prosecution had not established a case against the applicants. Consequently, the Court allowed the revision application and ordered the discharge of the applicants in the criminal proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the alleged consensual relationship negates the offence of sexual assault.
- Whether there is a prima facie case against the applicants sufficient to deny discharge.
- Whether the material on record implicates the wife in the alleged harassment.
Subjects
- sexual assault
- discharge application
- delay in FIR
- consensual relationship
- criminal revision
- burden of proof
Judgment
4-REVN-203-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 203 OF 2026
1. Sanjay Kumar Shah
2. Asha Sanjay Shah ...Applicants
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
SONALI by
Digitally signed
SONALI
Ms. Anjali Patil a/w. Mr. Tohid Shaikh, Advocate for Applicants.
SATISH KILAJE
SATISH Date:
2026.10.07
KILAJE 10:43:11
+0530
Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.
Ms. Priya Chaubey, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Satesh Kalbhor, PSI, Trombay Police Station present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this application is to the impugned order
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, whereby
the learned Judge has rejected the discharge application of the applicants.
2. It is prosecution’s case that the applicant No.1, who was
acquainted with the first informant, established physical relations with her
against her will by allegedly assuring her that he would facilitate
employment for her brother and brother-in-law. It is further alleged that
the applicant No.2 being the wife of applicant No.1 subsequently abused
and harassed the first informant and threatened her with circulation of
Page 1 of 4
4-REVN-203-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
photographs.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the
applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The relationship
between the applicant No.1 and first informant was consensual
relationship and material collected during investigation, including the
communication between the parties, photographs, travel records and other
documents, indicates that the parties were voluntarily meeting and
maintaining a relationship with each other. There is delay in lodging the
complaint. As the relations between the applicant No.1 and first informant
were consensual, no case is made out against the applicants. The learned
counsel further submitted that the applicants have also placed on record
material concerning the recruitment of the brother and brother-in-law of
first informant, which indicates that the applicant No.1 was not the
appointing authority and the appointments were subject to the prescribed
selection process. Therefore, the allegations that applicant No.1 induced
the first informant by assuring her that he would secure employment for
her relatives requires consideration in light of the said material. However,
these facts are not considered by the learned Sessions Judge, which is
erroneous and requested to allow the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 that the applicant No.1 took advantage of his position
Page 2 of 4
4-REVN-203-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
and assured the first informant that he would facilitate employment for her
brother and brother-in-law. Learned APP further submitted that to prove
the defence of the applicant, evidence is required. Learned counsel
further stated that applicant No.2 being wife of applicant No.1
subsequently abused and harassed the first informant and threatened her
to circulate her photographs. On 15.03.2023, the first informant went to
the office of applicant No.1 to inform him about the conduct of the
applicant No.2. However, applicant No.1 threatened the first informant
that he would get her brother removed from his employment. The
statement of first informant is sufficient to prove the involvement of the
applicants in the crime. There is prima facie case against the applicants.
The learned Sessions Judge has passed well reasoned order no interference
is required init and requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused the FIR and
documents produced on record. As per the prosecution’s case, the incident
of first sexual assault took place on 26.08.2023 at Delhi and the
subsequent incident took place at Hydrabad on 14.10.2023. The FIR was
lodged on 23.03.2024. There is a delay of around seven months in lodging
the complaint. As regards applicant No.2, the allegations against her are
distinct and the material on record does not disclose her participation in
alleged acts attributed to applicant No.1. It appears from record that the
Page 3 of 4
4-REVN-203-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
relations between the applicant No.1 and first informant were consensual.
Since, the relations are consensual, applicant No.1 cannot be held liable for
offence as alleged against him. However, this fact has not been considered
by the learned Sessions Judge and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The applicants are discharged in the Sessions Case No.
669 of 2024 arising out of C.R.No. 118 of 2024 registered
with Trombay Police Station.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.