Q42appln2465-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 42 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2465 OF 2026 Shaikh Abdul Rehman Ahmed Shaikh Rizwan VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ... Mr. I. D. Maniyar h/for Mr. Gundre Suraj V, Advocate for Applicant Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for the Respondent-State Mr. Dr. Supriya Pansambal, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 28th September, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State. The learned Advocate for the original victim is also present. 2. The present applicant is seeking quashment of the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 97 of 2026 dated 15.04.2026 registered with Jinsi Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 64(2)(m), 69, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The application is filed mainly on the ground that the respondent No.2 prosecutrix has agreed to withdraw the entire allegations constituting the present the present FIR against the applicant and on the ground that both the parties have now settled the dispute by entering into a compromise deed. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant as well as respondent no.2 were major when the alleged 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:44290 Q42appln2465-26 incident has taken place. Both of them were in love relationship and the incident that has been reported as an offence under sections 64 and 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita is, in fact, the consensual action between the two adult individuals. Now, since both of them have amicably agreed to withdraw the allegations, the application be allowed and the FIR impugned in this criminal application be quashed and set aside. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2- prosecurtirx has supported the contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the applicant. 5. The learned APP appearing for the State invites attention of this Court to the earlier orders passed by this Court dated 16.07.2026 and 24.08.2026 and submits that this court has clarified that the quashing of the petition will be looked into on the basis of the merits of the matter and the terms of settlement between the parties will be taken only one of the grounds for quashment. 6. I have perused the entire charge-sheet and also the material placed on record by way of compromise deed and the report of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The allegations made in the FIR about the offence pertaining to section 64 on the ground marriage, which, according to the complainant, at that time, was a false promise to marry and on account of that the consent of respondent no.2 was 2 of 5 Q42appln2465-26 obtained for maintaining physical relationship by the applicant. It is then admitted position that respondent no.2 as well as the present applicant were in a friendly relationship which culminated into a love affair and subsequently both the adults indulged themselves in the physical relation with each other. Perusing the settlement terms which have been placed on record, respondent no.2 in the said settlement terms, has categorically stated as below: “C. Both the First Party and the Second Party are adults and have been in a consensual romantic relationship for the past one year. The incidents referred to in the FIR arose out of their mutual relationship and personal differences, without any form of force, coercion, or non-consensual acts by the First Party.” Perusal of the above referred clause clearly specifies that both the parties are adult and have been in consensual romantic relationship since one year and the incident which has been alleged has taken place on the basis of mutual relations. The parties have further stated explicitly in clause ‘H’ of the said terms, which reads as under: “H. The Second Party explicitly gives her free, full, and unconditional consent for quashing the FIR No. 97/2026 and all consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the same FIR(like a Chargesheet if any) against the First Party pending before any court, including the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.” This clause states that the victim has given her free will, full and 3 of 5 Q42appln2465-26 unconditional consent for quashing of FIR bearing No. 97 of 2026, which is the present offence in question with all consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR. 7. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions canvassed by both learned Advocates appearing for respondent no. 2 and the applicant and after perusing the material available on record in the nature of charge-sheet as well as the consent terms, I am of the opinion that this is not the case of any violent sexual assault. The Hon’ble Apex Court has, time and again, clarified that ordinarily, heinous offences cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement between the parties, as such offences have ramifications in the society at large. However, the present case is not of such a nature. It appears that the parties were in a relationship but could not convert their relationship into a marital bond due to certain personal differences. The FIR was filed by the prosecutrix admitting that when the incident has taken place, she was adult and the consent terms now recorded clearly specify that it was an act of consensual relationship between both the parties. Having regard to all these circumstances, I am inclined to allow the present application. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (a) Criminal Application No. 2465 of 2026 stands allowed. 4 of 5 Q42appln2465-26 (b) First Information Report bearing bearing Crime No. 97 of 2026 dated 15.04.2026 registered with Jinsi Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 64(2)(m), 69, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and consequential criminal proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. (d) No orders as to costs. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 5 of 5