Allowed

Ravi Dattaram Parsekar v. State of Goa, Thr. Public Prosecutor and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2024WPCR/49/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition to quash an FIR under Section 376 IPC. The victim voluntarily withdrew the complaint, stating a desire to live peacefully without future contact. The court found the possibility of conviction remote and remote, ordering quashing in interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), quashing the FIR and consequent report.

Ravi Dattaram Parsekar Vs State of Goa, Thr. Public… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-GOA:1723-DB

¶2

WPCR-49-24

¶3

Santosh

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶5

Mr R

¶6

Ms Tejaswini Kole, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr Pravin Faldessai, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondents No.1 and 2.

¶7

Ms Swati S. Kamat Wagh, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶8

DATED : 8^th OCTOBER 2024.

¶9

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. This is a Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint of Respondent No.3 under Section 376 IPC. The Petition is filed for quashing of the FIR and consequent report on the ground that the relationship between the parties, who are both major, was consensual.

¶10

08/10/2024

¶11

WPCR-49-24

¶12

2. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 submitted that she has filed an affidavit to the effect that the victim does not want to pursue the complaint dated 07/01/2023 filed by her before Porvorim Police Station and further does not want to participate in any criminal proceedings pursuant to the said FIR as considerable time has passed since her complaint and that she wants to live a peaceful life considering the good prospects in future. In the affidavit, it is stated that she does not have any objection if the present proceedings are closed by this Court by appropriate orders. Respondent No.3 has further stated in the affidavit that she will not remain in contact with the Petitioner in future and that she legitimately expects the Petitioner not to approach her or harass her with regard to her withdrawal of the complaint.

¶13

3. The Petitioner, who is personally present in the Court, has also filed an affidavit dated 8/10/2024. In the affidavit, he has stated that he will not meet or contact the Complainant and that he shall, in no manner threaten or come in the way of the Complainant. It is further stated that he shall in no manner interfere in the personal life of the Complainant at any point of time.

¶14

4. Learned Counsel on instructions of the ComplainantRespondent No.3 who is personally present in the Court,

¶15

08/10/2024

¶16

WPCR-49-24

¶17

states that this course of action adopted by the ComplainantRespondent No.3 is voluntary and that she is not under any threat or coercion whatsoever.

¶18

5. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another - (2012) 10 SCC 303 and in view of the stand that has been taken by the parties, we are satisfied that the possibility of a conviction is remote and bleak. We are satisfied that the victim’s wish that continuation of the proceedings will do more harm than good needs to be respected and she be allowed to move ahead in life. The statements made by the Petitioner in the affidavits be abided by. In the interest of justice and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the present Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶19

6. The Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶20

VALMIKI MENEZES, J. M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶21

Signed by: SANTOSH SHRIDHAR MHAMAL Designation: Senior Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Judge Date: 10/10/2024 17:35:22

¶22

08/10/2024

Ravi Dattaram Parsekar v. State of Goa, Thr. Public Prosecutor and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Dattaram Parsekar v. State of Goa, Thr. Public Prosecutor and 2 Ors.

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

Manisha Gurudas Sawant Vs the Hon'Ble Principal District and Session Court, Panaji and 2 Ors.

Mahadev Ramchandra Vaze Vs Sagun Sajro Gaddi @ Ghadi (Since Dec.) and 6 Ors.

Johnson Jose Fernandes and 6 Ors., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Sharlet Fernandes Vs Village Panchayat of Majorda Utorda Calata, Thr. the Secretary and 5 Ors.

Jayashri N. Rajebhosale @ Bimabai R. Sardessai Rep by Attorney Vikramsinh Rajebhonsale Vs Goa Cricket Association Thr. Secretary Chetan Desai and 6 Ors.

Dr. Sujata Dhanajirao Kadam Vs the Principal, Tilak Ayurved Mahavidyalaya and 8 Ors.