Jayshree Rajesh Chougule vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶1

Digitally signed ARUNA by ARUNASANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 2026.02.10 23.WP4440.2025.doc 11:09:23 +0530

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4440 OF 2025

¶5

Jayshree Rajesh Chougule.. … Petitioner. V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Vijaykumar Kamble, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Prasanna Malshe, APP for Respondent/State. Mr. Akash Ahire i/b. Mr. Ganesh Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶8

PSI Dattatray R. Gharat, Pairavi Officer, Parksite Police Station.

¶9

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 4^th FEBRUARY, 2026.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶12

of India and under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

¶13

Sanhita, 2023, is preferred by the Petitioners for quashing of the FIR bearing No. 465 of 2017 for offence punishable under section 354, 354(B), 323, 504 read with 345 of Indian Penal Code

1

Talwalkar

23.WP4440.2025.doc

alongwith Section 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Charge sheet bearing POCSO Special Case No. 100074 of 2018 pending before the Special Judge under POCSO Act Greater Mumbai 18^th Court at Mumbai.

¶18

Petitioner is present in court along with her Advocate Mr. Vijaykumar Kamble. Photo identity card of the Petitioner is taken on record and marked “ X ” for identification.

¶19

Respondent No. 2 is present in court along with her Advocate Mr. Akash Ahire.

¶20

Mr. Vijaykumar Kamble and Mr. Akash Ahire submit that the only allegation against the Petitioner in the present crime was of the Petitioner having verbally abused the Respondent No. 2. They submit that the main allegations for charging the aforereferred offences were against Ritesh Rajesh Chougule (CCL), who was held to be guilty of commission of the crime by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dongari and thereafter released on probation of good conduct. Order dated 29.01.2018 passed by Principal

2

Talwalkar

23.WP4440.2025.doc

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dongri, Mumbai is placed on record (at page 61 to 64 of the paperbook). They submit that Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 have settled the difference between them and the Respondent No. 2 has no objection for quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶25

Mr. Akash Ahire, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 tenders affidavit dated 4^th February, 2026 alongwith the photo identity card of the Respondent No. 2, which are taken on record and marked as “ X-1 ” and “ X-2 ”,respectively for identification. Respondent No. 2 who is present in the Court states that the affidavit (“X-1”) is filed out of her own free will and without any pressure from any person. She states that the contents of the Affidavit (“X-1”) are as per her say. She reiterates that the dispute between her and the Petitioner having been resolved, she has no objection for quashing of the FIR.

¶26

Mr. Prasanna Malshe, learned APP for the State confirms that the main allegations were against the CCL. He submits that no purpose would be served in continuing criminal

3

Talwalkar

23.WP4440.2025.doc

proceedings in view of the settlement between the parties and the statements made by the Respondent No. 2 in her affidavit (“X-1”) . He however, insists for imposition of costs.

¶31

Mr. Vijaykumar Kamble and Mr. Akash Ahire on instructions from the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 submit that the parties would deposit an amount of Rs. 10000/- each, as costs.

¶32

Considering the above circumstances, the nature of allegations against the Petitioner, the Order dated 29.01.2018 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dongri, the amicable settlement between parties, the statements made by the Respondent No. 2 in her Affidavit ("X-1") and having regards to the judicial pronouncements in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab¹ , Narinder Singh & ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh² and Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat, there is no impediment for allowing this Petition.

¶33

(2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶34

2025 SCC Online SC 466

4

Talwalkar

23.WP4440.2025.doc

This Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/-. Consequently, the FIR

¶39

No. 465 of 2017 registered at Parksite Police Station, and chargesheet bearing POCSO Special Case No. 100074 OF 2018 pending before the Special Judge under POCSO Act Greater Mumbai 18^th Court at Mumbai.

¶40

Petitioner shall deposit Rs. 10,000/- in the belowmentioned bank account within a period of two week from today and file compliance affidavit alongwith proof of deposit of costs in

¶41

the Registry of this Court, on or before 9^th March, 2026.

¶42

The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai Account No.: 000120110001337 Bank : Bank of India Branch : Mumbai Main IFSC Code : BKID0000001

¶43

Respondent No. 2 shall deposit an amount of

¶44

Rs.10,000/- in the below-mentioned bank account within a period of two week from today and file compliance affidavit alongwith proof of deposit of costs in the Registry of this Court, on or before

5

Talwalkar

23.WP4440.2025.doc

9^th March, 2026.

Central Police Welfare Fund Director General M.S. Mumbai. Account No: 914010029005759 Bank : Axis Bank Limited Branch : Worli, Mumbai (M.H.), Mumbai - 400 025 IFSC Code: UTIB0000060.

¶50

Writ Petition No. 4440 of 2025 is allowed in the above

¶51

terms.

¶52

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶53

6

¶54

Talwalkar

Jayshree Rajesh Chougule v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayshree Rajesh Chougule v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahmani Aadil Mohammad Saeed vs State of Maharashtra

Dr Amol Tukaram Yamgar and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin Yadav Jadhav and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Masoom Oprakash Bhatia vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mangilal Akhreraj Kothari and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sambhaji Balu Bhote and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.