IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2901 OF 2025 Faizal Salim Shaikh ] Age : 29 years, Occ.: Business, ] R/at. Near Noorani Masjid, ]

Yerwada, Pune – 411 001. ] … Petitioner V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra ]

Through The Senior Inspector of Police, ] Koregaon Park Police Station, ] Koregaon Park, Pune. ]

2. ABC ]

Age : 24 years, Occ: None, ] R/at : B/A/3, Siddhivinayak Vihar, ] Handewadi Road, Hadapsar, ] Pune – 411 028, ] Koregaon Park Police Station, ]

Koregaon Park Pune. ] ...Respondents _______________________________________

Mr. Arjun Kadam for Petitioner.

Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for Respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Abhishek Roy for Respondent No.2.

Mr. Yashpal M. Thakur, Appointed Advocate by Legal Aid for Respondent No.2.

Ms. Shilpa Nimkar, API, Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune, present.

_______________________________________

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 30^th June 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 24th September 2025 JUDGMENT ( Per : A. S. Gadkari, J.) :-

1) Petitioner, accused in Final Report No. 55 of 2019, dated 19^th September 2019, pending on the file of learned Special Judge, District and Sessions Court, Shivajinagar, Pune, arising out of C.R. No. 0105 of 2019, dated 13^th February 2019, punishable under sections 376, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under sections 4, 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), for quashing of the said case, with the consent of Respondent No.2, the victim.

2) Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Patil, learned APP for Respondent No.1, State, Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Mr. Thakur, learned Advocate appointed by Legal Aid Committee to represent the Respondent No.2. Perused entire record.

3) The First Information Report is lodged by the Respondent No.2. It is stated that, Respondent No.2 was below the age of 18 years. She got acquainted with the Petitioner at the time of obsequies ceremony of her grandmother at Yerawada, Pune. The Respondent No.2 was in need of a job. Petitioner informed the Respondent No.2 that, he is doing the work of event decoration, has many contacts and told the Respondent No.2 that, he would give her a job. The Petitioner developed his friendship with the Respondent No.2. He subsequently proposed the Respondent No.2 for marriage. However the Respondent No.2 told him that, she was below the age of 18 years and after completion of 18 years of age, she may consider to marry with him. However the educational qualification of Petitioner, as expected by the family members of the Respondent No.2 was not satisfactory, the Respondent No.2 declined his proposal to marry. In the last week of October 2018, the Petitioner gave a phone call to the Respondent No.2 and called her for an event to celebrate his girlfriend’s birthday. In the said party, his 3-4 other friends were also present. After everybody left the premises, the Petitioner offered a cold drink (coca-cola) to the Respondent No.2. After drinking the said cold drink, the Respondent No.2 felt dizzy. Petitioner took the Respondent No.2 in the bedroom and tried to force himself on her. He told the Respondent No.2 that, shortly she would be completing 18 years of her age and at that time, he would perform marriage with her. The Respondent No.2 refused his offer. At that time, the Petitioner assaulted her, threatened her to kill and forcibly established physical relations with her. On the next day morning, when awakened the Respondent No.2 found that, her clothes were in scattered condition and she felt physically week. As the Respondent No.2 was frightened, she did not inform the said fact to anybody. 15 days prior to lodgment of the crime, the Respondent No.2 started suffering from vomiting. Upon questioning by her mother, she confide