Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Pushkar Pingle vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

Home
Bombay HC
2024
Pushkar Pingle vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.Pushkar Pingle v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Allowed

Pushkar Pingle v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2024WP/960/2024

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Allowed

Issue for consideration

Should Sessions Case No.SC/425/2023 arising from C.R. No.182/2022 be quashed given the parties' settlement and the victim's consent affidavit?

A

RVC 17 Wp-960-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 960 OF 2024

Pushkar P. Pingle

… Petitioner

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

XYZ … Respondents

Mr. Kushal Mor i/b Marmik Shah for Petitioner.A Adv. Manpreet Kaur a/w Mr. Samar Pal, Ms. Prapti Bhadra i/b Falcon Legal for Respondent No.2.

Smt. M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.-State.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 1^st August 2024

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Should Sessions Case No.SC/425/2023 arising from C.R. No.182/2022 be quashed given the parties' settlement and the victim's consent affidavit?
2.
Was the relationship between petitioner and respondent consensual as contemplated under Section 376(2)(n) IPC?

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Indian Penal Code376(2)(n)
Information Technology Act, 200067-A
Constitution of India226

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Pushkar P. Pingle
respondent
The State of Maharashtra
respondent
XYZ (Respondent No. 2)

Coram

AI extract

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 22 Mar 2024 · March
Registered: 22 Mar 2024
Case no.: WP/960/2024

All orders in this case

5 orders share this CNR

22 Mar 2024Order 1 — this page · A.s. Gadkari Neela Kedar Gokhale
8 Jul 2024Order 2 · A.s. Gadkari Neela Kedar Gokhale
18 Jul 2024Order 3 · A.s. Gadkari Neela Kedar Gokhale
1 Aug 2024Order 4 · A.s. Gadkari Neela Kedar Gokhale
2 Sept 2024Order 5 · A.s. Gadkari Neela Kedar Gokhale

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from A.s. Gadkari Neela Kedar Gokhale

Sagar Chandrakant Doiphode and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.
21 Mar 2024
Ravindra Janardhan Bhosale vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.
21 Mar 2024
Madhura@Mathura Vijay Fakade vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.
20 Mar 2024
MD Asad MD Irshad Siddique vs State of Maharashtra
22 Mar 2024

Cite this judgement

Pushkar Pingle v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., WP/960/2024 (BOM), decided on 22 March 2024.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Indian Penal Code376(2)(n)
Information Technology Act, 200067-A
Constitution of India226

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale

Parties & counsel

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

P.C. :

1. Petitioner, accused in Sessions Case No.SC/425/2023, pending

on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 15^th Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No.182/2022, registered with Andheri Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections 376(2)(n), 354-A, 354-C, 328, 509,

506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the said case with the consent of Respondent No.2, the victim.

1. Mr. Mor, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submitted that, in

1/4

RVC 17 Wp-960-2024.doc

the interregnum, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have settled their disputes and differences and the Respondent No.2 has filed an Affidavit dated 17^th July 2024, giving her consent for quashing of the said crime.

Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 admitted the fact of filing of Affidavit by Respondent No.2 dated 17^th July 2024, affirmed before the Consulate General of India, Dubai. It is stated therein that, the parties herein have amicably settled their disputes and in para No.4 thereof, she has given her no objection for quashing of the present crime.

3.1) Learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submitted that, Respondent No.2 has given her authority to admit the contents of her Affidavit dated 17^th July 2024 and to give her ‘no objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

Perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that, Respondent No.2 was an adult lady, having grown up children when the alleged first sexual assault on her took place in July 2020. It further indicates that, Respondent No.2 was the consenting party to the alleged act as contemplated under Section 376(2) (n) of the I.P.C. and relations between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were consensual in nature.

In view thereof, we are inclined to quash Sessions Case No.SC/425/2023, pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 15^th Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No.182/2022, registered with Andheri Police Station, Mumbai.

2/4

RVC 17 Wp-960-2024.doc

As we expressed our opinion for quashing of said Sessions Case No.SC/425/2023, pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 15^th Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, learned Advocate for Petitioner on instructions submitted that, the Petitioner will pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the Central Police Welfare Fund, Maharashtra State within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of present Order on the official website of Bombay High Court. The said statement is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court.

We therefore direct the Petitioner to pay the cost of Rs.50,000/to the Central Police Welfare Fund, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of present Order on the official website of High Court of Bombay.

7.1) Details of the bank Account for payment of cost are as under :-

Bank Name :- Axis Bank Limited. Branch Name :- Worli, Mumbai, Mumbai-400 025. Account Name :- Central Police Welfare Fund Account Number :- 914010029005759 IFSC Code :- UTIB0000060 7.2) Petitioner to deposit the said cost of Rs.50,000/- within

stipulated period as noted above and submit receipt of the same in the Registry of this Court.

In view of above and subject to payment of cost, Petition is

3/4

RVC 17 Wp-960-2024.doc

allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

It is made clear that, if the cost is not paid within stipulated period as mentioned above, the Petition shall stand revived automatically and in that event, the trial Court will proceed with the hearing of the said Sessions Case No.SC/425/2023 expeditiously.

List the Petition on board on 2nd September 2024, under caption ‘for reporting compliance’ of present Order.

( DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. )

( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESHVASANT VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2024.08.13 10:38:04 +0530

4/4

A.S. Gadkari

Dr. Neela Gokhale

CNR

HCBM010120032024

Topic

Quashing and FIR

Bench

A.s. Gadkari Neela Kedar Gokhale

Disposal

Allowed

Chetan Sanjay Dusane vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

22 Mar 2024

Sanket Sanjay Dusane and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

22 Mar 2024