-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 2026:BHC-AUG:41614-DB -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