Bombay High Court
Madan Kaluram Tibilsena vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 January, 2018
2. CRI WP 1126-16.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1126 OF 2016
Madan Kaluram Tibilsena .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Ms. Sartaj Shaikh Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. Munira Palanpurwala Advocate for Respondent No. 2
Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
M.S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 10, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter
is heard finally by consent of parties.
2. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, respondent
No. 2 - original complainant and learned APP for the State.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5
2. CRI WP 1126-16.doc
3. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing
the FIR bearing No. 514 of 2015 of L.T. Marg Police Station,
Mumbai. The said FIR is under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC
and under Sections 4 and 12 of The Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had a love affair
with sister of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is the
original complainant in the present case. On account of the
love affair, the victim girl i.e the sister of the complainant ran
away with the petitioner At that time, she was 17 years of
age. On account of this, respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR
against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 1, the victim
girl and her mother are present before this Court. The
complainant as well as the mother of the victim girl have
filed affidavits before this Court. The said affidavits are
taken on record and marked "X" & "X1" respectively for
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5
2. CRI WP 1126-16.doc
identification. In the said affidavits, it is stated that they
have amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and the
petitioner and the victim girl were having a love affair and
the victim girl voluntarily ran away with the petitioner. It is
further stated in the affidavit that whatever happened
between the victim girl and the petitioner was by consent.
The complainant as well as the mother of the petitioner have
stated that once the victim girl becomes 18 years of age,
they will get her and the petitioner married and the family
members have no-objection to the said marriage. In view
thereof, the complainant as well as the mother of the victim
girl have stated that they have no objection for quashing the
FIR and the proceedings relating thereto.
6. It is seen that when the victim girl ran away with the
petitioner, she was 17 years of age. A reference can be
made to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of S.
Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras1 and Shiji @ Pappu &
Ors. Vs. Radhika & Anr.2 . In addition to the above facts,
1 AIR 1965 SC 942
2 2012 Cri. L. J. 840
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5
2. CRI WP 1126-16.doc
it can also be seen that even if, in the present case the trial
proceeds, it will result in nothing but adding to the turmoil to
the life of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and his family. In
view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we
are of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to give an end to
the criminal litigation between the petitioner and respondent
No. 2.
7. Gainful reference can be made to the unreported order
dated 22.2.2010 passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Arun Goyal Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 3. Useful
reference can also be made to the Judgment of this Court in
the case of Amit Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr.4 wherein the FIR under Section 376 of IPC came to be
quashed on account of the settlement between the parties.
3 SLP (Cri) 2900 of 2009
4 2014 (SCC) Online Bom. 1240
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5
2. CRI WP 1126-16.doc
8. Thus, in view of above decisions and in view of the
amicable settlement between the parties, we are inclined to
quash the FIR and proceedings relating thereto. Hence, Rule
is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) i.e FIR bearing
No. 514 of 2015 of L.T. Marg Police Station and the
proceedings relating thereto are quashed.
9. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 5
