Bombay High Court Quashes POCSO Case After Settlement; Orders Amount Deposited By Accused To Be Utilised Towards MacBook Purchase For Victim
The Bombay High Court considered the fact that the parties had acknowledged that the complaint came to be filed due to a misunderstanding.
The Bombay High Court has quashed a POCSO case after noting the settlement arrived at between the parties and further directed that the amount of Rs 1.5 lakh to be deposited by the accused be utilised towards buying a MacBook for the victim.
The High Court considered the fact that the parties had acknowledged that the complaint came to be filed due to a misunderstanding.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for quashing the FIR registered under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and sections 74, 75 and 78 of the B.N.S.
The Single Bench of Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe held, “Mr Shahzad Naqvi, on instructions from the Petitioner, states that the Petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from today. Statement accepted. Considering the said statements, I deem it fit and proper to direct the Registry of this Court to utilize the said amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to procure the latest version of a MacBook / laptop for the Respondent No.2 in consultation with the Respondent No. 2, which would suit the needs of the Respondent No. 2 for her further studies.”
Advocate Shahzad Naqvi represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Sana Subedar represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the case of the petitioner that a misunderstanding between the Petitioner (uncle) and the second Respondent (niece) resulted in the filing of the Complaint. It was submitted that the Petitioner treats the Respondent as his daughter and criminal proceedings may not be continued. It was further submitted that the father and the mother of the Respondent confirmed that the incident, as was alleged in the complaint, was out of a misunderstanding.
It was the case of the respondent that no purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings and the same may be quashed. However, considering the manner in which the proceedings were filed, the respondent insisted on costs payable by the Petitioner.
Reasoning
Considering the nature of the dispute, the fact that the matter was settled between the Petitioner and the Respondent, as well as her parents and the Respondent victim having given a no objection, the Bench allowed the petition. Reference was also made to the judgments of the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab (2012), Narinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr (2014) and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State Of Gujarat (2017).
It was brought to the Court’s attention that the Petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 in the Registry within two weeks. Considering such a statement, the Bench ordered the Registry of the Court to utilise the said amount of Rs 1,50,000 to procure the latest version of a MacBook / laptop for the Respondent girl.
“If any amount remains in excess after the purchase of the Macbook / Laptop, the same be transferred in the below mentioned accounts of The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai”, it added.
The Bench thus quashed the impugned FIR and the chargesheet.
Cause Title: Mohan Maruti Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:8265)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Shahzad Naqvi, Amrin Syed, Naqvi Juris, Mohan Maruti Jadhav
Respondent: Advocates Sana Subedar, Additional Public Prosecutor P. N. Dabholkar, API Dadaraje Pawar, Chatasrangi Police Station