Bombay High Court
Huzaifa Jive Ambaliyasana vs State Of Maharashtra on 21 January, 2025
Author: Ravindra V Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:3863
4-WP-127-2025 (CR) .odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 127 OF 2025
Huzaifa Jive Ambaliyasana ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
----
Mr. Shadab Khopekar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP for the State.
Mr. Jahagir Iqbal, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 21st JANUARY, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V Ghuge, J)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner Accused has put forthwith prayer clause
(a) as under :
"(a) This Honorable court is kindly requested to call for the record
and proceedings in FIR No.350/2024 of Goregaon Police Station and
Charge Sheet Filed Before Ld. JMFC Court, Borivali Bearing Case
No.4879/PW/2024. After perusing the same, please set aside and
quash CR no.350/2024 of Goregaon Police Station Charge Sheet
Filed Before Ld. JMFC Court, Borivali Bearing Case
ADN 1 of 5
4-WP-127-2025 (CR) .odt
No.4879/PW/2024, which was registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 376(2)(n),506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)."
3. The learned Advocate representing the Complainant-
Respondent No.2 herein, submits that she was around 29 years of
age when she developed a friendship with the Accused. This
friendship eventually progressed into a physical relationship for
some time, on the promise of marriage. She had consented to the
physical relationship only because the Accused had expressed his
willingness to marry her. Subsequently, the Accused declined to
enter into a marriage with her.
4. The Complainant is before the Court seeking quashing
of the F.I.R. by consent and the disposal of the pending case before
the Trial Court. The reason for consenting for the quashing is that
she is now scheduled to get married in Uttar Pradesh and she does
not desire that this case be taken further, since it could ruin her
future married life.
5. In view of the above, we have referred to the recent
judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta
ADN 2 of 5
4-WP-127-2025 (CR) .odt
V/s. State of NCT of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.1217 of 2022. It
would be apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 as under :
"12. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that
though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings
wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High
Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there
exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to
whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead
to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court
has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement
between the parties is going to result into harmony between
them which may improve their mutual relationship."
13. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider
as to what is the stage of the proceedings. It has been observed
that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the
evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of
arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the
power to quash the proceedings. However, if such an application
is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the
said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power."
6. There can be no debate that an offence punishable
under Section 376 is a grave and a serious offence which needs to be
tried and is not compoundable. It is in peculiar circumstances that
this Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if it
appears that the said offence would not stand the test of law since it
was a voluntarily consensual relationship between two adult
persons. If the physical relations were by consent, mainly because
the accused later declined to marry the Complainant, would not
ADN 3 of 5
4-WP-127-2025 (CR) .odt
amount to an offence in the light of Uday V/s. State of Karnataka,
(2003) 4 SCC 46.
7. The Petitioner has tendered an original affidavit dated
24th December, 2024 from page 111 to 114, indicating therein that he
has amicably settled the matter with the Complainant. The
Complainant has also entered an original affidavit dated 21st
December, 2024 from page 115 to 118, wherein it is stated that she
does not intend to proceed with her Complaint. Though the said
affidavit does not contain a statement that she is consenting to settle
the matter since she is getting married to a different person in Uttar
Pradesh, she submits that she would tender such an affidavit to the
Court, upon a pass over.
8. After lunch recess, the learned Advocate representing
Respondent No.2 Complainant, has filed an original affidavit (4
pages). It is specifically stated that the Complainant is getting
married and would be shifting to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Therefore, she prays that the F.I.R. be quashed by consent, or else
she is likely to face a serious turmoil in her life. She further submits
that besides the turmoil, her marriage would also be in danger and,
ADN 4 of 5
4-WP-127-2025 (CR) .odt
she desires that the F.I.R. be quashed by consent. The said original
affidavit is taken on record and marked as 'X' for identification.
9. In the light of the law laid down in Kapil Gupta V/s. State
of NCT of Delhi (Supra), this Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a), which reads as under :-
"(a) This Honorable court is kindly requested to call for the record
and proceedings in FIR No.350/2024 of Goregaon Police Station
and Charge Sheet Filed Before Ld. JMFC Court, Borivali Bearing
Case No.4879/PW/2024. After perusing the same, please set aside
and quash CR no.350/2024 of Goregaon Police Station Charge
Sheet Filed Before Ld. JMFC Court, Borivali Bearing Case
No.4879/PW/2024, which was registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 376(2)(n),506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)."
10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
ADN 5 of 5
