Allowed¶27

Sashikant Vishwas Powar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Criminal Writ Petition – quashing of FIR

Bombay HC16 Oct 2025WP/1850/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on basis of victim's affidavit declining prosecution; victim (respondent no.2) was minor (17 years 1 month) at time of offence and is related to accused as cousin; victim now married, peaceful family life; reliance on Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur; Criminal Writ Petition No. 1850 of 2021; decided 16 October 2025 by M. S. Karnik and Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.; petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); victim's identity masked.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), i.e., quashing of the FIR; additionally, the name of respondent no.2 was permitted to be masked in the proceedings and in the charge-sheet. ¶27

Sashikant Vishwas Powar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

901-1850-2021-Cri.WP=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1850 OF 2021

¶5

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAY SHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2025.10.16 20:11:09 +0530

¶6

Sashikant Vishwas Powar … Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Paras Yadav a/w Mr. Viraj Nlavade for the petitioner Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni for the respondent no.2 Mr. Pankaj Deokar, APP for the respondent - State.

¶10

Coram : M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.

¶11

Date : October 16, 2025.

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned APP for the respondent – State.

¶14

2. The name of the respondent no.2 is permitted to be masked in these proceedings as well as in the charge-sheet. Consequential amendment to be carried out during the course of the day.

¶15

3. The respondent no.2 is personally present in the Court. At the

¶16

relevant time, when the offence is alleged to have been committed, the

¶17

1 of 3

¶18

Uday S. Jagtap

¶19

901-1850-2021-Cri.WP=.doc

¶20

respondent no.2 was 17 years and 1 months of age. The accused is the cousin brother of the respondent no.2.

¶21

4. The respondent no.2 has appeared before us and stated that she does not want to continue with the criminal proceeding, as now she is married and leading a peaceful family life and that continuation of the criminal proceedings will create further complications. In the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, dated 16^th October 2025, it is stated that she does not want to continue with the prosecution. The affidavit is taken on record.

¶22

5. The present facts are such that we are more than satisfied that continuation of the criminal prosecution will not only cause difficulties to the respondent no.2 but that will be a futile exercise as the respondent no.2 does not want to continue with the criminal prosecution as against the petitioner.

¶23

6. In the light of the law laid down in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the facts justify quashing of the FIR.

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

Uday S. Jagtap

¶26

901-1850-2021-Cri.WP=.doc

¶27

7. The petition is, therefore, allowed in term of prayer clause (a).

¶28