Back
Uncle's 'Misunderstanding' with Niece Leads to POCSO FIR Quashing—and a Court-Ordered MacBook
In a rare turn in a sensitive POCSO case, the
has quashed criminal proceedings against a Pune resident accused of sexual offences against his minor niece, accepting their claim of a family misunderstanding. Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, in a
, order, not only ended the case but directed the uncle to deposit Rs 1.5 lakh for purchasing the
"latest version of a MacBook/laptop"
to support the girl's further studies.
A Family Rift Turns Legal Nightmare
The saga began with FIR No. 184/2025 at , invoking —punishments for sexual assault—and , for assault and criminal force on a woman. A chargesheet followed as Case No. 742/2025.
The petitioner, a 52-year-old man present in court and identified via his ID (marked "X"), is the uncle of Respondent No. 2, the minor victim. Her father, Prakash Shreepati Kamble, and mother also appeared, affirming the familial bond. The case stemmed from an alleged incident that all parties later described as a "misunderstanding," with the uncle treating the niece "as his daughter."
Both Sides Unite: 'No Grievance, Let's End This'
Petitioner's counsel, , argued the complaint arose from a simple family miscommunication. He highlighted the niece's statement under before a :
"मला माया मामा मोहन माती जाधव यांचे व काही तार नाही."
(Translation:
"I have no grievance against my maternal uncle Mohan Marti Jadhav."
) Naqvi urged quashing, emphasizing the uncle's paternal affection.
Respondent No. 2's advocate,
, echoed this, with the girl, her parents present, filing an affidavit (marked "X-2") dated
. The minor affirmed it was her
"own free will... without any pressure or coercion,"
reiterating no objection to quashing. Her parents confirmed the misunderstanding.
State's APP agreed no purpose remained in prosecution but insisted on costs due to the case's initiation.
Precedents Pave the Way for Compassionate Closure
Justice Bhobe invoked Supreme Court landmarks on quashing via settlement: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) for high court powers under ; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) on settlements in heinous crimes if no public interest harmed; and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) refining quashing criteria.
These guided the court to find "no impediment," given the settlement, niece's affidavit (paras 4-11), and in-person affirmations—distinguishing it from cases lacking victim consent.
Echoes in the Chamber: The Court's Telling Words
Key Observations
"It was on account of a misunderstanding between the Petitioner (Uncle) and Respondent No. 2 (Niece) that resulted in the filing of the Complaint."
"Respondent No. 2... states that the said Affidavit (X-2) is filed ... She reiterates her ."
"From the statements... and the same may be quashed."
"Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the nature of dispute, the matter being settled... there is ."
MacBook Mandate: Quashing with a Study Boost
Writ Petition No. 135/2026 succeeded on condition of Rs 1.5 lakh deposit within two weeks:
"Registry... to utilize the said amount... to procure the latest version of a MacBook / laptop for the Respondent No.2 in consultation with [her]... for her further studies."
Excess funds go to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund.
The FIR and chargesheet stand quashed, with compliance review on . Parties must reappear.
This ruling underscores courts' flexibility in family-linked POCSO matters on proven settlements, while imposing costs to deter frivolous filings—potentially influencing similar 'misunderstanding' cases, as noted in contemporaneous reports highlighting the educational twist.
