1 980criappln1162.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 980 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1162 OF 2026 DINESH RAMCHANDRA MISTRI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Jain Vishwajeet Ramesh APP for Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. S.D. Ghayal Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Kiran P. Rathod h/f Mr. Jadhav Alkesh Raju … CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATE : 01.09.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties. 2. The present applicant seeks quashing of the First Information Report bearing No. 349 of 2015 registered with MIDC Police Station Jalgaon, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO”). He also seeks quashment of the charge-sheet bearing No. 46 of 2017 filed before the learned Special District and Sessions Judge at Jalgaon, which subsequently has been culminated into the Special Case (POCSO) No. 13 of 2017 and the said special case is also sought to be quashed. 2 980criappln1162.26 3. After the First Information Report (for short “FIR”) was lodged with the Police Station MIDC Jalgaon, the investigation was set in motion at the behest of respondent No. 2, being mother of respondent No. 3, respondent No. 2 who was minor at the time of the incident. The FIR alleges that at the time when the incident took place the age of the victim was 15 years old, having her date of birth as 06.04.2000. 4. Perusal of the FIR, shows that the FIR was registered against one unknown person, alleging that on the date of incident i.e. 16.12.2015 the victim was not found in the house and therefore, she was searched in the surrounding areas and as she was not found there, the offences were registered alleging that some unknown person has abducted the victim. On investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant had committed the alleged offence, and therefore, he came to be arrested and subsequently, he was released on bail. The investigation progressed and finally the charge-sheet has been filed for the above referred offences. After taking the cognizance of Special Case No. 13 of 2017 is pending trial before the learned Special Court. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have jointly submitted that there is amicable settlement between the parties and the parties have appeared before the learned Registrar, (Judicial) of this Court for the purpose of verification. The report has been submitted in this Court on 03.07.2026 by the 3 980criappln1162.26 Registrar, (Judicial) mentioning that the verification has been carried out, wherein, the parties have identified themselves and voluntarily accepted the settlement and contents therein are expressed without any pressure or coercion. The terms and conditions of the compromise deed are also placed on record, which is dated 03.07.2026, wherein, it is stated that the FIR was registered due to misunderstanding and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 wants to withdraw the said complaint against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant and respondent No. 3, who is victim have performed marriage and out of the said wedlock they have one daughter and one son. The applicant has also assured that he will take care of the family and children till end. In the light of the said consent terms the parties have approached this Court for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings. 6. The learned APP, however, has voluntarily opposed the settlement by submitting that the alleged offence is a grievous and heinous and committed against a child, who was 15 years of age on the date of commissioning of the offence. He submits that entire investigation machinery was set in motion, thereafter even the machinery of the Court has also been utilized. He submits that presently the trial is progressed, wherein, almost 11 witnesses have been examined including the victim. On Court’s query he fairly submits that the victim has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. He requests that let the trial be concluded on its own merits and 4 980criappln1162.26 the present application on the basis of settlement may not be considered for the trial Court’s order. 7. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 confirms the fact of settlement between the parties on the ground that both of them are happily married since or more than 10 years and they have 2 children born out of the said wedlock. He submits that no purpose would be served by dragging the applicant and parties to face the agony of trial, when both of them are cohabiting together happily. 8. Taking into consideration opposition that has been leveled by the learned APP, it is desirable to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. the State of Utter Pradesh and others in 2025 SCC Online SC 614, has quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings by observing that when accused and victim are happily cohabiting life, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution and it will cause undue harassment to them. 9. Similarly the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case in Shiva Channapa Odala v. The State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2023 DGLS (Bom) 682 and that proceeding has also been quashed by observing that is will be contrary to the interest of the justice to continue with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner therein as both the parties will have equally put to hardship, 5 980criappln1162.26 particularly, when both of them decided for quashing by consent on the ground of reasons cited in support of quashing. It is further observed that there is no reason to continue with the prosecution in view of the consent extended by the victim. 10. In the light of the aforesaid settled principle, this Court finds that the present one is the fit case to quash and set aside the FIR and consequential proceedings thereby allowing the present application. Hence the following order : ORDER (i) The Criminal Application stands allowed in terms of prayer Clause (A). (ii) The First Information Report bearing No. 349 of 2015 registered with MIDC Police Station Jalgaon, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the consequential charge-sheet along with Special Case (POCSO) No. 13 of 2017 are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii). No order as to the costs. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) mahajansb/