1 apl2162.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.2162 OF 2026 1. Vaibhav S/o Ashokrao Ghotekar Aged about 33 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Takali (Darne), Tah. Deoli, Dist. Wardha. 2. Nikhil @ Golu S/o Vitthalrao Bawane Aged about 33 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Takali (Darne), Tah. Deoli, Dist. Wardha. ...APPLICANTS ...V E R S U S... 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Allipur, Dist. Wardha. 2. XYZ (alleged victim) in Crime No.327/2022 registered by Police Station Allipur, Dist. Wardha. (victim). 3. ABC (Complainant) in Crime No.327/2022 registered by Police Station Allipur, Dist. Wardha. (Informant). ...NON-APPLICANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Aadquid Z.Mirza a/w Shri Ibrahim Baksh, Advocates for applicants. Shri I.J. Damle, APP for non-applicant no.1/State. Shri Q.M. Ejaz Raza a/w Shri N. Mirza, Advocates for non-applicant no.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED :- 29.09.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Admit. 2026:BHC-NAG:13121 2 apl2162.26.odt 2. The applicants seek quashing of First Information Report bearing Crime No.327/2022 registered with Police Station, Allipur, District Wardha for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 392, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “POCSO Act”) and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w) (ii), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as charge-sheet filed in Special Case No.30/2022 before the District Judge-1, Hinganghat, District Wardha. 3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that 04.06.2022, when the victim/non-applicant no.2 was proceeding towards her house, applicant no.1 intercepted her and committed forceable sexual intercourse with her; whereas, applicant no.2 assisted applicant no.1 by dropping him off at the said spot. Therefore, on the complaint of the mother of the victim, the aforesaid offence came to be registered against the applicants. 4. Now, this application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings on account of settlement between the parties. 3 apl2162.26.odt 5. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that there was a love relationship between applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2. Non-applicant no.2, at the relevant time, was 17 years and 9 months old i.e. almost major. It is further contended that just because the intimacy between applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 was noticed by the brother of non-applicant no.2, therefore, under the pressure of the family members, she lodged a complaint against the applicants. Applicant no.1 was released on bail on the affidavit submitted by non-applicant no.2 stating that she is in love with applicant no.1 and their relationship was consensual. Applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 have performed marriage and out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with a baby boy. They are now happily leading their life together. In this scenario, pendency of the proceedings may become a hindrance in their future. Therefore, it is submitted that the FIR and consequent proceedings as well as the charges framed by the trial Court are required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned APP objected to the application on the ground that the offence is heinous in nature. In such cases, consent of the minor is immaterial and therefore, he sought rejection of the application. 4 apl2162.26.odt 7. Learned counsel for non-applicant no.2 supported the case of the applicants by filing reply / affidavit of non-applicant no.2. Perusal of the affidavit filed by non-applicant no.2 would reveal that applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 were in a love relationship. Now, both of them are married and non-applicant no.2 delivered a child. Applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 are happily residing together and non-applicant no.2 has no objection if the FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed against the applicants. 8. The victim alongwith her baby boy are present in Court today. She has been duly identified by her counsel who reiterates that applicant no.1 has performed marriage with her and they are residing together. Non-applicant no.2 in her affidavit, contended that she was in love with applicant no.1 at the relevant time when she was a minor. She also contended that physical relations were established between them without any force, threat, coercion or inducement on the part of applicant no.1. The victim has no grievance whatsoever against applicant no.1 and she does not want to proceed with the prosecution initiated out of Crime No.327/2022. She also admits the contents of the affidavit and submits that she is residing with applicant no.1 and they are 5 apl2162.26.odt leading a peaceful married life. The birth certificate of the said child is also filed on record suggesting the paternity of applicant no.1. Non-applicant no.2 is accompanied with her mother who also submitted that non-applicant no.2 is leading a happy marital life. Non-applicant no.2 further submits that she has no objection if the FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed against the applicants. 9. The contents of the charge-sheet reveal that applicant no.1 forcefully raped non-applicant no.2 but the circumstances which are depicted from the FIR itself show that applicant no.1 used a condom. There is nothing on record to suggest that non- applicant no.2 resisted to the said acts of applicant no.1. Rather, seizure of the clothes depict that there was no violent act on the part of applicant no.1. No doubt, consent is immaterial because non-applicant no.2 was a minor at the relevant time. The fact remains that, at that time, non-applicant no.2 was on the verge of attaining the age of majority. Further, the circumstances of the case do not suggest that the alleged incident occurred in the manner which has been stated by non-applicant no.2 in the FIR. In such a scenario, the possibility that the FIR was lodged in order to falsely implicate applicant no.1 cannot be ruled out because the 6 apl2162.26.odt brother of non-applicant no.2 came on the spot and saw the incident of intimacy. 10. From the above discussion, it appears that the alleged sexual intercourse between applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 was not a result of lust but of the love relationship between applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2. Non-applicant no.2 is leading a happy marital life with applicant no.1. If the prosecution is allowed to be continued, the life of non-applicant no.2 and her son who is entirely dependent on applicant no.1, will be in jeopardy. It also appears that just because there was opposition from the families of applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 initially, the marriage could not be performed. In this scenario, continuation of prosecution would not only hinder the life of non- applicant no.2 but also the life of their son. Generally, the offence for contravening the provisions of the POCSO Act are not to be quashed. Only in peculiar facts of the case, the High Court, by taking pragmatic approach can quash the FIR. 11. A reference can be made to the decision of Ayyub Malik and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another 1 wherein, the applicant was being prosecuted under the provisions of the POCSO 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 637 7 apl2162.26.odt Act. On account of settlement between the applicant and the victim, more particularly after considering the fact that the victim married the applicant, the Supreme Court while quashing the FIR, observed as under: “6.1 Any litigation brings a kind of botheration for the parties. The uncertainty of the outcome of the litigation always looms large. When it is a criminal case, its pendency becomes burdensome and worrisome. For appellant No.1 as well as appellant No.2, negotiating the criminal proceedings in a court of law, notwithstanding that both are now husband and wife living together, would operate as painful interference in their happy life. The High Court would have done justice to the parties only by quashing the criminal proceedings against appellant No.1 initiated by the complainant-father of appellant No.2.” 12. A reference can also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1 wherein, it has been observed that generally an offence under the provisions of the POCSO Act shall not be quashed. However, in exceptional cases, a balanced approach is required to be adopted by combining practicality and empathy. The FIR can be quashed if the victim does not want to prosecute the matter any further. 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307 8 apl2162.26.odt 13. As stated above, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the affidavit filed by non-applicant no.2 regarding her love relationship with applicant no.1 and the observations made by the learned Sessions Court while granting bail stating that applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 were in love relationship assume significance. It appears that the allegations of rape were made in the FIR due to the insistence of the family members of the victim. Now, since applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 are married and have a child, if the FIR is not quashed and if applicant no.1 is convicted by the trial Court, it will be very difficult for non- applicant no.2 and her son to survive. 14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, looking at the change in circumstances, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court. 15. Since, applicant no.1 and the victim are residing together peacefully and are not financially sound, there shall be no order as to costs for utilizing police machinery. 16. In view of the above, the following order is passed: i. The criminal application is allowed. ii. First Information Report bearing Crime No.327/2022 9 apl2162.26.odt registered with Police Station, Allipur, District Wardha for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 392, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as charge-sheet filed in Special Case No.30/2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. With this, the application stands disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Wagh Signed by: Mr. S.R. Wagh Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/10/2026 16:17:08