Allowed

Bharat S/O Madhukar Kadam and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Oct 2016APPLN/6049/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad quashed criminal proceedings against applicants and discharged them of offences. The order allowed the application based on an amicable settlement and the voluntary admission by the informant and victim that they were above 18 years old at the time of the incident, rendering further proceedings futile.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No. 216 of 2013 were quashed and set aside, and the applicants were discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Bharat S/O Madhukar Kadam and Anr. Vs the State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6049 OF 2016

¶3

1. Bharat S/o. Madhukar Kadam, Aged : 27 years, Occupation : Labor, Residing at New Indira Nagar, Baijipura, Tq. and Dist: Aurangabad

¶4

2. Atul S/o. Bhanudas Mote, Aged : 27 years, Occupation : Labor, Residing at New Indira Nagar, Baijipura, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad

¶5

APPLICANTS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through, the Police Inspector, Police Station MIDC CIDCO, Aurangabad

¶8

2. Sumanbai W/o. Ramdas Machar, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Household, Residing at Naregaon, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. Arun S. Shejwal, Advocate for the applicants
Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1/State
Smt. Rutuja Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶10

CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 27th October, 2016

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

criapln6049-2016

¶14

¶15

Heard the informant – Sunitabai as well as the
victim girl who are present in the Court today. They
have been identified by learned counsel Smt. Rutuja
Kulkarni.

¶16

2.Sumanbai states that she being illiterate, she
had not mentioned the correct age of the victim girl
while lodging the F.I.R. According to her, in fact, she
had attained the age of majority at the time of lodging
the report. She further states that the victim girl has
married to applicant no.1 – Bharat. They are residing
happily. The victim girl has begotten a son from
applicant no.1. In the circumstances, she does not want
to proceed with the case that was instituted on her
F.I.R.

¶17

3.The victim girl has also filed an affidavit
wherein she states that she was major on 19th March,
2013. She has got married to applicant No. 1 after
lodging of the FIR by Sumanbai. She has begotten a male
child from this wedlock. She states that she is living
happily with applicant No.1. She, therefore, prays that

¶18

the criminal proceedings bearing Sessions Case No. 216

¶19

criapln6049-2016

¶20

¶21

of 2013 may be quashed.

¶22

4.The informant Sumanbai as well as the victim
girl have voluntarily admitted the contents of their
respective affidavits. They state that they have decided

¶23

on their own, without any external force, not to proceed
with the present case.

¶24

5.Considering the terms of amicable settlement
and considering the fact that the victim girl was above
18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident, as
claimed by the informant - Sumanbai as well as the
victim girl herself, we are of the view that the further
progress in Sessions Case No. 216 of 2013 would be a
futile exercise and no good purpose would be served by

¶25

keeping the said proceedings pending. In the
circumstances, we allow this application with the
following order.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

(i)The criminal proceedings bearing Sessions Case
No.216 of 2013 pending before the learned Adhoc

¶28

District Judge-3 and Assistant Sessions Judge,

¶29

Aurangabad, are quashed and set aside.

¶30

criapln6049-2016

¶31

¶32

(ii)Applicant nos.1 and 2 are discharged of the
offences punishable under Sections 363 and
366-A of the Indian Penal Code. They be set at
liberty forthwith, if not required in any other
case.

¶33

(iii)Criminal application is disposed of in the
above terms.

¶34

(iv)The parties to act on authenticated copy of
this order.

¶35

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL][S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE

¶36

npj/criapln6049-2016

Bharat S/O Madhukar Kadam and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat S/O Madhukar Kadam and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemant S/O Sadanand Surve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

1. Mohd Ifran Abdul Mannan Ghongade. Vs 1. the State of Mharashtra.

Sk Habib Ur Raheman S/O Sk Zaki Ur Raheman and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chootu Ramchandra Khairnar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Dnyandev Gopinath Pawar C.NO.8267 Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradip @ Bablu (Babali) S/O Trimbakrao Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other