Bombay High Court
Raj Bhonuprasad Jaiswar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 4 December, 2025
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2025:BHC-AS:54377-DB
1/8 2 WP-5942-25.odt
Salgaonkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANDIRA MILIND Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
SALGAONKAR Date: 2025.12.11 17:14:48 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5942 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4521OF 2025
(NOT ON BOARD. TAKEN ON BOARD)
Raj Bhonuprasad Jaiswar .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
...
Mr.Siddharth Singh i/b Mr.Rajesh Tiwari for the Petitioner.
Ms.Supriya Kak,Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State/Respondent.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATE : 04th DECEMBER, 2025
...
P.C:-
1. Yesterday i.e. on 03/12/2025, from 5.30 p.m. to 7.00
p.m., we had interacted with the Petitioner and Ms.X, whom he
referred to as his wife, in presence of their respective parents.
Since, Ms.X made it clear before us that she do not
consider the marriage to be solemnized, which bind her, it was
agreed before us that the two will part their ways, but subject
to an undertaking being filed by the Petitioner, that in no way,
he shall harass her and shall file an undertaking that in future,
they will not cross paths with each other and she should be
free from any obligations towards him. It was also agreed that
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 21:59:10 :::
2/8 2 WP-5942-25.odt
the Petitioner shall give an undertaking that he shall destroy
all photographs, messages, videos, chats exchanged between
them in the past and shall not put it to use on any social media
platform or there shall not be any disclosure by him of this
material in future.
By consensus, it was agreed that the proceedings filed by
the Petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and the
proceedings filed by Ms.X for declaring the marriage as nullity
in form of Petition No.160 of 2024, pending before the Civil
Judge Senior Division, Bhiwandi shall be withdrawn by the
respective parties. A consensus was also expressed that the
subject F.I.R., which has now culminated into Special Case
No.130 OF 2023 shall be quashed with consent of Ms.X.
2. We must note that during yesterday's hearing in the
chamber, Advocate R.R.Tripathi represented Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 as well as Ms.X. Whereas learned counsel
Mr.Siddharth Singh represented the Petitioner. It was agreed
that a special sitting shall be held on 04/12/2025 at 3.00 p.m.
for filing the respective affidavits, so that the Petition can be
disposed of.
3. Today, since we had another matter in chamber
scheduled at 2.45 p.m., which was also pertaining to writ of
Habeas Corpus and, therefore, we could take the Dias only at
3.40 p.m., we are informed that Advocate Tripathi appearing
for the private Respondents has already left the Court and has
handed over the undertaking-cum-affidavit of the proposed
Respondent/victim Ms.X to the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 21:59:10 :::
3/8 2 WP-5942-25.odt
The Petitioner has also affirmed an affidavit and it is
placed before us.
4. In absence of Mr.Tripathi, the father and the uncle of
Ms.X, are present before us alongwith her mother.
Ms.X, who is present in the Court, confirm before us that
she has affirmed the affidavit tendered on her behalf by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor on 04/12/2025 and
though the affidavit is not very happily worded by her lawyer,
she unequivocally expressed to us that she want to end the
relationship with the Petitioner and seek a declaration that the
alleged ceremony of marriage that is performed between them
shall not bind them.
She also expressed her no-objection in quashing the
subject F.I.R. which was registered against the Petitioner by
invoking Sections 363, 365, 376, 376(2)(n), 506 of the IPC
and under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
According to her, at the relevant time, she was minor and,
therefore, the provisions of the POCSO Act were invoked. But,
since the alleged marriage ceremony was performed between
them, when she attained majority, she is voluntarily making a
statement that she is not desirous of prosecuting the
Petitioner, as in her 164 statement, she had categorically
stated that she had voluntarily married the Petitioner and she
was never kidnapped or coerced into the relationship.
5. In any case, as on date, Ms.X has decided to continue to
prosecute her education and without disclosing her
whereabouts, she want to lead her future life and focus on
education and do not want to be entangled in any litigation.
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 21:59:10 :::
4/8 2 WP-5942-25.odt
The affidavit contain a specific undertaking that the
Marriage Petition No.160 of 2024 filed by her seeking a decree
of nullity shall not be pressed by her and she will withdraw the
said proceedings, as the Petitioner as well as Ms.X have agreed
that there was no marriage lawfully solemnized between them.
This is, however, subject to the Petitioner abiding by the
undertaking given by him in his affidavit dated 04/12/2025.
6. The affidavit filed by the Petitioner also categorically
state that he shall withdraw the Petition filed under Section 9
for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court at
Bandra in form of Petition No.A/3171/2024 unconditionally.
His affidavit also contain following undertaking, which we
deem necessary to record.
"(iv) I further state that I shall permanently delete and
destroy all photographs, messages, videos, chats, audio recordings
or any other material or data pertaining to Ms.Shreya Shailesh
Pandey from all my devices, accounts and storage, and I undertake
that I shall never use, circulate, disclose, publish, forward, exhibit,
store, upload, post or rely upon any such photographs, messages or
digital content of Ms.Shreya Shailesh Pandey at any time in future,
either directly or indirectly, including on any social media, digital
platform or through any third person.
(v) I further undertake that I shall not retain any copy or
backup of such data in any manner whatsoever, and that I shall not
use the same in any future proceeding, complaint or interaction
under any circumstances.
(vi) That I shall not send any message, whether verbal,
written, electronic, digital, or through any third person, nor shall I
attempt to establish any form of communication or proximity with
her family and her future inlaws at any point of time.
(viii) That I hereby give my unconditional undertaking that
she shall be free to lead her independent life, and I shall not, under
any circumstances, be the cause of any interference, disturbance,
harassment or inconvenience to her, to her present or future family
members, relatives, husband or in-laws."
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 21:59:10 :::
5/8 2 WP-5942-25.odt
7. The affidavits filed by both the parties are taken on
record and the statements made therein are accepted as
undertakings given to the Court.
8. In light of the counter affidavits filed by the Petitioner as
well as Ms.X, since they do not intent to continue any
relationship with one another and have decided to walk their
own paths in life ahead, we accept the undertakings given in
the affidavits filed by both parties. Further we are of the view
that, as indicated by Ms.X in her affidavit, shared some close
proximity and though they have agreed that some ceremony
was performed between them in form of marriage, but now
they have declared that the same will not bind them. In the
wake of the no-objection accorded by Ms.X, who is now adult,
to quash the subject F.I.R., despite containing accusation under
the POCSO Act, 2012, in the given circumstances, we find the
present case to be a fit case to exercise our inherent
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings, as we find that
the victim at whose instance the subject F.I.R. was registered,
has also decided to move ahead in the life, upon the
undertakings given by the Petitioner that she shall be
permitted to lead her life independently, without his
involvement or interference.
9. In K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu1, while dealing
with a case, where the appellant was convicted under Section
366 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and he preferred an
appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed and the
marriage was performed between the victim and the appellant,
1 2025 INSC 1272
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 21:59:10 :::
6/8 2 WP-5942-25.odt
the Court adopted a balanced approach and noted that the
crime was not the result of lust, but love and the victim of the
crime has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable
family life with the appellant and continuation of the criminal
proceedings would disrupt the familial unit and cause
irreparable harm to the victim and the infant child. Recording
that it was a case where the law must yield to the cause of
justice, the proceedings were quashed against the appellant,
including conviction of sentence.
10. In the present case, we find that the relationship shared
between the two was a mutual relationship of love and on
attaining majority, Ms.X also entered into some ceremony, in
the nature of marriage, though it is now doubted, whether it
was a marriage ceremony which would bring the couple as
husband and wife, but on attaining majority, she has realized
that she do not intent to continue the relationship with the
Petitioner and want to continue with her education and lead
her life independent of the Petitioner, though the Petitioner
clearly expressed to us that he was ready and willing to accept
the relationship and settle in life with her. However, if now at
the end of Ms.X, there remain nothing in the relationship, so
much so that she denied that the ceremony resulted into
binding relationship between the two and she want to be set at
liberty from the same, we are of the view that the Petitioner
shall not be made to take the consequences of a consensual
relationship shared and as quoted by Their Lordships of the
Apex Court in K.Kirubakaran (supra), "law aims to ensure not
just punishment of the guilty, but also harmony and
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 21:59:10 :::
7/8 2 WP-5942-25.odt
restoration of the social order". Since we find that Ms.X does
not maintain any grudge against the Petitioner nor does she
want to press the accusations and she admit that the
relationship was consensual, but she want to walk out of the
relationship, according to us, it is a fit case where we should
exercise our inherent power under the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing of the proceedings, as now the
Petitioner has also conceded to the fact that they must part
their ways and should not create any obstacle in each others
life and on the other hand, permit the other, to lead a happy
and peaceful life. We, therefore, feel it appropriate to pass the
following order.
: ORDER :
(i) F.I.R.No.206 of 2023 registered by Narpoli Police Station and all the proceedings flowing therefrom are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The aforesaid is subject to the Petitioner and Ms.X seeking withdrawal of Petition No.A/3171/2024, pending on the file of the Family Court at Bandra as well as Petition No.160 of 2024, pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhiwandi.
11. Needless to state that the parties shall be bound by the undertakings and withdraw all the proceedings within four weeks from today.
12. During the course of hearing, the documents which are annexed to the Petition by the Petitioner, including the copy of the alleged marriage certificate is handed over to Ms.X, which she has accepted and acknowledged.
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 21:59:10 :::8/8 2 WP-5942-25.odt
13. The Petition and the Interim Application stand disposed of.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 21:59:10 :::