4-REVN-203-2026 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 203 OF 2026 1. Sanjay Kumar Shah 2. Asha Sanjay Shah ...Applicants VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Ms. Anjali Patil a/w. Mr. Tohid Shaikh, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State. Ms. Priya Chaubey, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. Satesh Kalbhor, PSI, Trombay Police Station present. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this application is to the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the discharge application of the applicants. 2. It is prosecution’s case that the applicant No.1, who was acquainted with the first informant, established physical relations with her against her will by allegedly assuring her that he would facilitate employment for her brother and brother-in-law. It is further alleged that the applicant No.2 being the wife of applicant No.1 subsequently abused and harassed the first informant and threatened her with circulation of SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2026.10.07 10:43:11 +0530 4-REVN-203-2026 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje photographs. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The relationship between the applicant No.1 and first informant was consensual relationship and material collected during investigation, including the communication between the parties, photographs, travel records and other documents, indicates that the parties were voluntarily meeting and maintaining a relationship with each other. There is delay in lodging the complaint. As the relations between the applicant No.1 and first informant were consensual, no case is made out against the applicants. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicants have also placed on record material concerning the recruitment of the brother and brother-in-law of first informant, which indicates that the applicant No.1 was not the appointing authority and the appointments were subject to the prescribed selection process. Therefore, the allegations that applicant No.1 induced the first informant by assuring her that he would secure employment for her relatives requires consideration in light of the said material. However, these facts are not considered by the learned Sessions Judge, which is erroneous and requested to allow the application. 4. It is contention of learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the applicant No.1 took advantage of his position 4-REVN-203-2026 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje and assured the first informant that he would facilitate employment for her brother and brother-in-law. Learned APP further submitted that to prove the defence of the applicant, evidence is required. Learned counsel further stated that applicant No.2 being wife of applicant No.1 subsequently abused and harassed the first informant and threatened her to circulate her photographs. On 15.03.2023, the first informant went to the office of applicant No.1 to inform him about the conduct of the applicant No.2. However, applicant No.1 threatened the first informant that he would get her brother removed from his employment. The statement of first informant is sufficient to prove the involvement of the applicants in the crime. There is prima facie case against the applicants. The learned Sessions Judge has passed well reasoned order no interference is required init and requested to reject the application. 5. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused the FIR and documents produced on record. As per the prosecution’s case, the incident of first sexual assault took place on 26.08.2023 at Delhi and the subsequent incident took place at Hydrabad on 14.10.2023. The FIR was lodged on 23.03.2024. There is a delay of around seven months in lodging the complaint. As regards applicant No.2, the allegations against her are distinct and the material on record does not disclose her participation in alleged acts attributed to applicant No.1. It appears from record that the 4-REVN-203-2026 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje relations between the applicant No.1 and first informant were consensual. Since, the relations are consensual, applicant No.1 cannot be held liable for offence as alleged against him. However, this fact has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge and I pass following order. ORDER (i) The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicants are discharged in the Sessions Case No. 669 of 2024 arising out of C.R.No. 118 of 2024 registered with Trombay Police Station. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)