MANISH RAMPRAKASH TIKAWADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                        H.C.SHIV                                                      5.W4118.26.DOC
           Digitally
           signed by
           HEMANT
HEMANT     CHANDERSEN
CHANDERSEN SHIV
SHIV       Date:
           2026.10.05
           11:50:05
           +0300                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4118 OF 2026
                        Manish Ramprakash Tikawade                             …Applicant
                                   V/s.
                        1. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                     …Respondents


                        Ms. Sakshi S. Mane for the Applicant.
                        Ms. Anagha Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
                        Mr. Ashish Vernekar for Respondent No.2.


                                                     CORAM:       SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                                                     DATED :      30th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                        P.C. :-

                        1.         Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

                        2.         Present petition seeks quashing and setting aside of Sessions
                        Case No.551 of 2019, pending before the learned Additional
                        Sessions Judge, 13th Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai arising out of FIR
                        bearing Cr.No.218 of 2017, registered with Versova police station,
                        Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) and
                        313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) on the report dated 8 th
                        July 2017, filed by Respondent No.2 (“the victim”).

                        3.         The prosecution case is that, between March 2009 and 4 th
                        July 2017, the petitioner maintained friendly relationship with the
                        victim and stayed together in same room. It is alleged that, the
                        petitioner, on false pretext of marriage, repeatedly committed
                        forcible sexual intercourse with the victim against her will.
                        Consequently, the victim got pregnant on three occasions, but, the
                        petitioner caused her to abort the child on each occasion. It is
                        alleged that, however, the petitioner refused to marry with the
                                                          Page 1 of 3
H.C.SHIV                                                     5.W4118.26.DOC



victim. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered. On
completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed.


4.         The learned Counsel for the parties state that, now, the
parties have amicably settled their dispute. The victim has given her
consent and no objection to quash the said case. Mr.Vernekar,
learned Counsel has tendered an Affidavit sworn by the victim to
that effect. It is taken on record and marked “X” for identification.


5.         The victim is present before the Court. She is identified by
learned Counsel Mr.Vernekar. She has reiterated the contents of
the affidavit. The petitioner and the victim state that although they
had stayed together for long period, now, it has become difficult for
them to stay together due to constant disputes between them. This
compelled them to part their ways. The victim states that her
physical relationship with the petitioner was consensual. This fact is
candidly stated in the affidavit. The text of the FIR also evinces that
the relationship between the two was consensual. The victim states
that since the matter has been settled, she does not want to
prosecute the petitioner in the said case and she is firm on her
decision and, she will maintain the said stand before the trial Court.
As such, there are bleak chances of the prosecution succeeding in
the present case. Therefore, no purpose would be served by
continuing the prosecution arising out of the said FIR. In view
thereof, I am inclined to allow the petition.


5.         As I expressed my opinion for quashing of the present crime,
learned Advocate for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that,
the petitioner will voluntarily pay a costs of Rs.5,00,000/-. Said
statement is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court. Hence,
following order:-

                                  Page 2 of 3
H.C.SHIV                                                        5.W4118.26.DOC



           (a)   Writ Petition No.4118 of 2026 is allowed.

           (b)   Sessions Case No.551 of 2019, pending before the
           learned Additional Sessions Judge, 13 th Court, Dindoshi,
           Mumbai and the FIR bearing Cr. No.218 of 2017, registered
           with Versova police station, Mumbai for the offence
           punishable under Section 376(2)(n) and 313 of the IPC, are
           quashed and set aside.


6.         The petitioner is directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- to the
‘The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund’ within a period
of two weeks from the date of uploading of the present Order on the
official website of the High Court of Bombay and the payment
receipt(s) shall be submitted in the Registry of this Court. Details of
the bank account for payment of cost are as under :-

      Account Name    :- The High Court Employees Medical
                         Welfare Fund
      Bank Name       :- Bank of India
      Branch Name     :- Mumbai Main Branch
                         Mumbai 400 023
      Account Number :- 000120110001337
      IFSC Code       :- BKID0000001
      Type of Account :- Current Account

6.1        List this petition on 20th November, 2026 ‘for recording
compliance’.



                                    (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)




                                    Page 3 of 3