Bombay High Court
Santosh Shivaji WalkeversusThe State of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The revision is allowed and the applicant is discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354, 374(3) and 506 IPC.
Summary
The applicant, a senior police officer, was charged with sexual assault of a fellow police officer (the first informant) under Sections 376, 354, 374(3) and 506 IPC. The Sessions Judge rejected the applicant’s discharge application and ordered trial to continue. The applicant filed a criminal revision, contending that the Vishakha Committee inquiry found no sexual relationship and that the first informant had not filed an immediate complaint, indicating consensual relations. The High Court examined the Committee’s report, noted the lack of a formal complaint, and found that the material did not justify continuation of the prosecution. Accordingly, the Court allowed the revision, quashed the Sessions Judge’s order, and discharged the applicant of all charges, while directing him not to contact the informant.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of discharging the applicant despite the pending charges under IPC sections 376, 354, 374(3) and 506.
- Whether the Vishakha Committee report and the absence of an immediate complaint negate the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the Sessions Judge’s order rejecting the discharge application should be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 354, 374(3), 376, 506
Subjects
- sexual assault
- police officer
- Vishakha Committee
- discharge application
- criminal revision
- IPC
- consent
- harassment
Judgment
67-REVN-308-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 308 OF 2026
Santosh Shivaji Walke ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Girish Kulkarni, Senior Advocate i/by Bhalchandra S. Shinde, Advocate
for Applicant.
Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Krantisingh Gadade, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned APP and
learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
2. The challenge in this application is rejection of discharge
application filed by the Applicant.
3. It is prosecution's case that Applicant and First Informant are
police officers. Applicant is Senior Officer of the First Informant and by
taking undue advantage of it, he sexually assaulted the first informant on
several occasions. It is alleged that Applicant told the first informant that
he is unmarried. But, actually he was married person.
Digitally
4. It is contention of learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that
signed by
VAISHALI
VAISHALI ANIL
ANIL TIKAM relations between the Applicant and first informant were consensual. Both
TIKAM Date:
2026.09.16
13:56:22
+0530
were police officers. Learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry
Page 1 of 3
67-REVN-308-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
under Vishakha Committee was conducted against the Applicant and in the
said enquiry, the Committee Members has observed that there were no
sexual relations as alleged by the first informant with the Applicant. But
this fact is not considered by the Learned Sessions Judge. There is no case
at all made out against the Applicant. Applicant is senior police officer and
requested to allow the application.
5. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for
Respondent No.2 that Applicant sexually assaulted the first informant on
several occasions under the influence of his post and on the promise of
marriage. Though the Applicant was already married. There are
statements of witnesses, which show that Applicant was in continuous
contact with Respondent No.2-first informant and had visited to the house
of Respondent No.2. There is sufficient material against the Applicant to
go on with the trial. The Learned Sessions Judge has passed well reasoned
order. No interference is required in it and requested to reject the
application.
6. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused impugned order and
documents produced on record. Applicant and First Informant both are
police officers. The inquiry was conducted against the Applicant by
Vishakha Committee and the report of the said Committee Members shows
that no sexual relations were found between the Applicant and First
Page 2 of 3
67-REVN-308-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
Informant. The First Informant has not challenged this report. Thought
the First Informant is major as well as she was police officer, in spite of
that no immediate complaint was filed against the Applicant. It appears
that the relations between them were consensual. There is no case made
out against the Applicant as alleged. But, this fact has not been taken into
consideration by the Learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for
respondent No.2 on instructions submits that respondent No.2 does not
wish to pursue the case and direction be given to the applicant not to
contact and influence her. Considering these facts, I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
(ii) The Impugned Order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Greater Bombay dated 04/04/2026 at Exh.12 in
Sessions Case No. 647/2022 rejecting discharge application
filed by the Applicant is quashed and set aside and the
Applicant be discharged from the offfences punishable under
Sections 376, 354, 374(3) and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
(iii) The Applicant shall not contact the first informant nor try to
influence through others.
(iv) Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.