Bombay High Court
Sindhil Venkatesh Suryawanshi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 June, 2025
Author: A.S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:29420-DB
dtg 4- Wp-2815-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2815 OF 2024
Sindhil Venkatesh Suryawanshi ]
Age :- 27 years, Occu.:- Service ]
Tukaram Tamber chawl, Manipada, Kalina ]
Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400098. ] ... Petitioner.
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Pant Nagar police station ]
2. XYZ ]
Age:- 33 years, (Original Complainant) ]
Through Pant Nagar Police Station, ]
Mumbai. ] ... Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Ravi Dwivedi a/w Mr. Sainath S. Baji for Petitioner.
Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Satish Shukla a/w Mr. Aditya Gole for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 present in person.
Mr. Sohamprakash R. Padvi, A.P.I., Pantnagar, Police Station, present.
_______________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 27th June 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(PER : A.S. Gadkari, J) :-
1) Petitioner, accused in Sessions Case No. 1082 of 2023, pending on
the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, Mumbai,
arising out of C.R.No.0475 of 2023, dated 21 st July 2023, registered with
dtg 4- Wp-2815-2024.doc
Pantnagar Police Station, Mumbai, punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n)
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed present Petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the said case with the consent of
Respondent No.2, the victim.
2) Heard, Mr. Dwivedi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Ms.
Ambekar, learned APP for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Shukla, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2. Perused entire record.
3) Mr. Dwivedi, learned Advocate for Petitioner submitted that, due
to intervention of the relatives, family members and friends, the Petitioner and
Respondent No.2 have resolve their disputes and differences and the
Respondent No.2 has now given her consent for quashing of the crime in-
question. He therefore prayed that, the said Sessions case and FIR be quashed
with the consent of Respondent No.2.
4) Mr. Shukla, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submitted that,
Respondent No.2 has filed Affidavit dated 10 th March 2025 on record. It is
stated therein that, with the intervention of the relatives, family members and
friends, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have settled their disputes. In para
No.3 of the said Affidavit, Respondent No.2 has given her no objection for
quashing of the said crime in-question.
4.1) Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through
her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 10 th March 2025
and her 'No Objection' for quashing of case in question.
dtg 4- Wp-2815-2024.doc
5) Perusal of First Information Report and other record indicates
that, Respondent No.2 was a divorcee. Respondent No.2 got acquainted with
the Petitioner in April 2020 while playing online game, namely PUBG. She
came into contact with Petitioner. Their acquaintance was subsequently
blossomed into an affair. It is alleged that, by giving promise to marry, the
Petitioner established physical relations with Respondent No.2. In the FIR itself
the Respondent No.2 admits that, she joined the company of Petitioner at
various places and had drinks with him.
5.1) It be noted here that, in April 2020, the Respondent No.2 was
approximately 29 years of age and was a divorcee. Perusal of First Information
Report and other material on record indicates that, the relations between
Respondent No.2 and Petitioner were consensual in nature.
6) In view of the above, we are inclined to quash Sessions Case No.
1082 of 2023, pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Greater Mumbai, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No. 0475 of 2023, dated 21st
July 2023, registered with Pantnagar Police Station, Mumbai.
7) As we expressed our opinion for quashing of said criminal case,
Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel for Petitioner on instructions submitted that, the
Petitioner will pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to Bar Council of Maharashtra and
Goa's Advocate Academy and Research Center, within a period of two weeks
from the date of uploading of the present Order on the official website of the
High Court of Bombay. The said statement is accepted as an undertaking given
dtg 4- Wp-2815-2024.doc
to this Court.
8) We therefore direct the Petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to
Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa's Advocate Academy and Research Center
within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of the present Order
on the official website of the High Court of Bombay.
8.1) Details of the bank Account for payment of cost are as under:-
Account Name :- BCMG'S Advocate Academy & Research
Center
Account Number :- 000120110001327
Bank Name :- Bank of India
Branch Name :- Mumbai Main
IFSC Code :- BKID0000001
Type of Account :- Current A/c
8.2) Petitioner to pay the said cost of Rs.1,00,000/- within stipulated
period as noted above and submit its receipt in the Registry of this Court.
9) In view of above and subject to payment of cost, Petition is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (c).
10) It is made clear that, if the cost is not paid within stipulated
period as mentioned above, Petition shall stand revived automatically and in
that event, the Sessions Court will proceed with the said case expeditiously.
11) List the Petition on board on 8th August 2025, under the caption
'For Reporting Compliance' of present Order.
( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )
