Dismissed

Mukesh Sadashiv Pandit v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Aug 2021APL/569/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2021 rejected an application to quash an FIR alleging molestation of an 8-year-old girl under POCSO and IPC Section 354. The court held that despite the alleged settlement between the parties, such offences involving mental depravity and public interest could not be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application rejected; prayer to quash FIR No. 64/2021 dismissed.

Mukesh Sadashiv Pandit Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2021.08.21 15:10:19 +0530

¶2

Cri.Apl-569.21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.569 OF 2021

¶5

ABC

¶6

]…. Applicant/Org.Accused

¶7

versus

¶8

1]The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Senior P. I.]
P. S. Vithalwadi, Dist. Thane.]
]
2]XYZ]….. Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Sudhir C Halli for the Applicant.
Mr. V B Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶10

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ

¶11

DATE :11th August 2021

¶12

JUDGMENT : (PER S.S SHINDE, J)

¶13

1At the outset it is required to be noted that since the allegations
levelled by the Respondent No.2 i.e. the First Informant against the Applicant
are in respect of alleged molestation of her daughter, the identity of Petitioner
and the 2nd Respondent needs to be concealed. Therefore in the cause title, the
Petitioner is referred to as “ABC” and the 2nd Respondent is referred to as
“XYZ”. Registry is directed to main the record accordingly.

¶14

2Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent

¶15

of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

1 of 5

¶17

lgc

¶18

Cri.Apl-569.21.odt

¶19

3 This Criminal Application is filed by the Applicant for the

¶20

following substantial relief :-

¶21

“(b)This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased, after going into legality, propriety and substantivity of the case, to quash and set aside the F.I.R. No.64/2021 registered with P. S. Vithalwadi Dist. Thane against the Applicant, on such terms and conditions as deems fit and proper.”

¶22

4It is the allegations of the 2nd Respondent that the alleged incident
occurred on 27/02/2021 at 10.30 pm. whereby the Applicant was found to be
moving his hands on the stomach and chest of the victim girl of the 2nd
Respondent. It is alleged that the the Applicant has committed the offence of
molestation with the victim girl of the 2nd Respondent. On being narrated the
aforesaid act of the Applicant by the victim girl to the Respondent No.2, the
2nd Respondent lodged a complaint being FIR No.64 of 2021 at the Vithalwadi
Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”).

¶23

5The learned counsel for the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent –
Original Complainant jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled the
dispute and, therefore, the impugned FIR may be quashed.

¶24

6The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant invites attention

¶25

2 of 5

¶26

lgc

¶27

Cri.Apl-569.21.odt

¶28

of this Court to the averments made in the affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent
and submits that the 2nd Respondent has no objection to quash and set aside
the impugned FIR.

¶29

7We have carefully perused the contents of the impugned FIR and
the affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent – original complainant who is the
mother of the victim girl. There is a reference in the FIR about the allegations
made by the victim girl against the present applicant. At the relevant time, the
age of the victim girl was 8 years.

¶30

8We have carefully perused the allegations made in the FIR. It
appears that the victim girl has narrated in detail the alleged act of the
applicant to her mother i.e. the Respondent No.2. It is alleged against the
present applicant that the applicant came in the house of 2nd Respondent at
about 10.30 pm on 27/02/2021 and misbehaved with the victim girl. It is
alleged that the applicant started moving his hands over the stomach and chest
of the victim girl. It is further alleged that the Applicant also kissed the neck,
cheeks and lips of the victim girl. The act of the Applicant prima facie shows
the intention of the Applicant to molest the victim girl, who was 8 years of old
at the time of the alleged incident. The offences alleged against the Applicant
are under Section 8 of the POCSO ACT, and Section 354 of the Indian Penal
Code. Admittedly, the victim was minor at the time of incident and the alleged

¶31

3 of 5

¶32

lgc

¶33

Cri.Apl-569.21.odt

¶34

activities of the Applicant not only prima facie attract the provisions of Section
354 of the Indian Penal Code, but also attract the provisions of Section 8 of the
POCSO Act.

¶35

9In view of the settled position in law, as also the fact that, the
alleged offences levelled against the Applicant are under the Special Act and
have a serious impact on the society, the prayer of the applicant to quash the
impugned FIR cannot be acceded to. The alleged offences are not
individualistic in nature and indicate mental depravity. Such offences have
serious impact upon the society. In such FIRs the Investigating Officer should
be allowed to carry out the investigation, and at this pre-mature stage,
acceding to the prayer of the applicant and the 2nd Respondent to quash the
impugned FIR on the basis of alleged settlement would not be in confirmity
with the exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v.
State of Punjab and anr1

¶36

10The reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Prasanath
and anr v/s. The State and ors. in Cri. O. P. (MD) No.3463 of 2020is

¶37

misplaced in the facts of the present case.

¶38

11The same view, as aforementioned, in the case of Gian Singh

¶39

1 2012 (10 SCC 303

¶40

4 of 5

¶41

lgc

¶42

Cri.Apl-569.21.odt

¶43

(supra) has been reiterated/confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and ors2, wherein it is held

¶44

that :-

¶45

“1…..

¶46

2…..

¶47

3…..

¶48

4…..

¶49

5…..

¶50

6 In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are truly speaking, not private in nature but have serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.”

¶51

12.For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, we are not
inclined to allow the prayer of the Applicant to quash the impugned FIR on the
basis of the alleged settlement. In that view of the matter, the Criminal
Application is required to be rejected, and the same stands rejected.

¶52

[N. J. JAMADAR, J]

¶53

2 2019 (5) SCC 688

¶54

5 of 5

¶55

lgc

Mukesh Sadashiv Pandit v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Sadashiv Pandit 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minakshi Narendra Sheth and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rahul Dilip Dhotre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin D. Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Zunzar S/O. Suresh Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Rajbahadur Agrawal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandhu Sarwan Singh Santok Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.