67-REVN-308-2026 (CR).doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 308 OF 2026 Santosh Shivaji Walke ...Applicant/s VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Girish Kulkarni, Senior Advocate i/by Bhalchandra S. Shinde, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Krantisingh Gadade, Advocate for Respondent No.2. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 2. The challenge in this application is rejection of discharge application filed by the Applicant. 3. It is prosecution's case that Applicant and First Informant are police officers. Applicant is Senior Officer of the First Informant and by taking undue advantage of it, he sexually assaulted the first informant on several occasions. It is alleged that Applicant told the first informant that he is unmarried. But, actually he was married person. 4. It is contention of learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that relations between the Applicant and first informant were consensual. Both were police officers. Learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.09.16 13:56:22 +0530 67-REVN-308-2026 (CR).doc Tikam under Vishakha Committee was conducted against the Applicant and in the said enquiry, the Committee Members has observed that there were no sexual relations as alleged by the first informant with the Applicant. But this fact is not considered by the Learned Sessions Judge. There is no case at all made out against the Applicant. Applicant is senior police officer and requested to allow the application. 5. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that Applicant sexually assaulted the first informant on several occasions under the influence of his post and on the promise of marriage. Though the Applicant was already married. There are statements of witnesses, which show that Applicant was in continuous contact with Respondent No.2-first informant and had visited to the house of Respondent No.2. There is sufficient material against the Applicant to go on with the trial. The Learned Sessions Judge has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required in it and requested to reject the application. 6. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. Applicant and First Informant both are police officers. The inquiry was conducted against the Applicant by Vishakha Committee and the report of the said Committee Members shows that no sexual relations were found between the Applicant and First 67-REVN-308-2026 (CR).doc Tikam Informant. The First Informant has not challenged this report. Thought the First Informant is major as well as she was police officer, in spite of that no immediate complaint was filed against the Applicant. It appears that the relations between them were consensual. There is no case made out against the Applicant as alleged. But, this fact has not been taken into consideration by the Learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions submits that respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case and direction be given to the applicant not to contact and influence her. Considering these facts, I pass following order: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Application is allowed. (ii) The Impugned Order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay dated 04/04/2026 at Exh.12 in Sessions Case No. 647/2022 rejecting discharge application filed by the Applicant is quashed and set aside and the Applicant be discharged from the offfences punishable under Sections 376, 354, 374(3) and 506 of Indian Penal Code. (iii) The Applicant shall not contact the first informant nor try to influence through others. (iv) Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)