Allowed

Pratik Milind Shevre v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Apr 2018WP/16/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Writ Petition concerned the quashing of an FIR and charge-sheet involving the uploading of photographs of the petitioner and a minor girl on social media. The High Court granted leave to amend the petition to include a prayer for quashing. Upon interaction with the first informant and the victim, the Court found the allegations arose from infatuation, with the victim having no compla

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (aa), granting leave to amend to quash the charge-sheet.

Pratik Milind Shevre Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 / 5 905-WP-16-18.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.16 OF 2018

¶4

Pratik Milind Shevre .... Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr.Yugal Bhatia, i/b. Ms. Kalpana R. Trivedi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mrs.A.S. Pai, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 13^th APRIL, 2018.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Leave to amend is granted so as to incorporate the

¶12

prayer clause (aa) for quashing the charge-sheet. Amendment to

¶13

be carried forthwith.

¶14

The above Writ Petition has been filed for quashing of

¶15

the FIR being No.410/2017 registered with Dahisar Police Station, u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 12 of the

¶16

Nesarikar

¶17

2 / 5 905-WP-16-18.odt

¶18

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (For short POCSO) r/w section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act.

¶19

However, the factual position has transcended the said stage inasmuch as the charge-sheet has now been filed before the concerned Special Court. The Petitioner herein has been arraigned as an accused, insofar as the said offences are concerned. The allegations against the Petitioner are as regards the uploading of his pictures along with the victim girl on the social media site, wherein the Petitioner and the victim girl are shown in different poses. The first informant Mrs.Riddhi Rajan Jadhav, is the mother of the victim girl. She has lodged the FIR on the basis of what has been told to her by her husband, who has seen the pictures on 'WhatsApp'.

¶20

It seems that pursuant to the registering of the offence the Petitioner was arrested and incarcerated for some time and was released on bail. The Petitioner today is around 19 years of

¶21

3 / 5 905-WP-16-18.odt

¶22

age. The victim girl is around 16 years of age. The victim girl has admitted to her parents that she was knowing the Petitioner over some time. It appears that the relationship developed between the Petitioner and the victim girl, during which relationship, the Petitioner has taken the photographs and uploaded the same on 'WhatsApp' and the said photographs thereafter went viral.

¶23

Prima facie, having regard to the ages of the Petitioner and the victim girl, we find that this is case of infatuation on either side. It cannot be said that the Petitioner had any ill intention or motive of exploiting the victim girl. Undertone of the above Petition filed by the first informant i.e. Mrs. Riddhi Rajan Jadhav, is that she does not want to proceed with the case in question and therefore the FIR and the charge-sheet be quashed on the said basis.

¶24

We, to satisfy ourselves as regards the said claim had interacted with the first informant Mrs. Riddhi Rajan Jadhav and

¶25

4 / 5 905-WP-16-18.odt

¶26

the victim girl in our chamber at 05.00 p.m. During the course of the interaction, the first informant informed us that though she had lodged the FIR, now on hindsight she feels it would not be in the interest of the victim girl to pursue the FIR. We also put a few queries to the victim girl, who informed us that she has now no complaint against the Petitioner and that she also does not want to proceed with the case in question.

¶27

Hence after our interaction with the first informant

¶28

and the victim girl, as also having regard to the respective ages of the Petitioner and the victim girl and having regard to the fact that they are presently pursuing their studies and want to pursue careers of their choice after they complete their studies, we are of the view that the pendency of the FIR would unnecessarily create hurdles in their respective lives. We can imagine what the Petitioner must have undergone during his incarceration for the offences alleged against him. We are of the view that both, the Petitioner and the victim girl, should be given an opportunity to start life afresh after forgetting what has

¶29

5 / 5 905-WP-16-18.odt

¶30

happened in the past. Though one of the offence alleged against the Petitioner is one u/s 12 of the POCSO, in respect of which offences we would be slow in exercising our writ jurisdiction for purpose of quashing, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we would be failing in our duty if we do not interdict in the matter at this stage.

¶31

The first informant Mrs.Riddhi Jadhav is once again present before us today. She reiterates what she has stated before us in the Chamber, that she does not desire to proceed with the case in question.

¶32

In the light of the aforesaid is required to be allowed and Petition is accordingly allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (aa).

¶33

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Pratik Milind Shevre v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratik Milind Shevre v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Swapnil Sudhir Tupe Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Piyush Vijaysingh Pardeshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Savarmal Sitaram Parekh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajesh Nanalal Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Mira Road Police Station and Anr.

Prasad Ramchandra Joshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hiralal Amruta Rathod and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.