Accused directed to contribute towards the victim's education; misunderstanding leads to closure of criminal proceedings.
In a significant ruling by the Bombay High Court, the criminal proceedings involving Mohan Maruti Jadhav, accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, were quashed following a mutual settlement between the parties involved. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of an FIR filed under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Sections 74, 75, and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioner, Mohan Maruti Jadhav, who was the uncle of the victim, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and chargesheet. The court was informed that the complaint arose due to a misunderstanding between the petitioner and the victim, who is Jadhav's niece. The victim and her parents expressed no objection to the quashing of the proceedings, which was further supported by an affidavit submitted by the victim.
Presiding over the case, Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe noted the mutual settlement and the absence of any coercion in the victim's affidavit. The court emphasized that continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no purpose. Moreover, the court took into consideration the precedents set by the Supreme Court in similar cases, which support quashing proceedings when a settlement is reached.
As part of the settlement terms, the petitioner agreed to deposit Rs. 1,50,000 in the court registry. This amount is earmarked to support the victim's educational expenses, specifically for procuring a laptop to aid her studies. Any remaining funds will be transferred to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai.
The court scheduled a compliance hearing on March 9, 2026, requiring the presence of the victim and her parents. This decision marks a noteworthy instance of judicial intervention facilitating amicable resolution, reinforcing the potential for settlements in cases arising from misunderstandings.
Bottom Line:
Petition for quashing FIR and chargesheet under Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act and Sections 74, 75, and 78 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, allowed on account of settlement between parties, with cost payment directed for utilization towards education of Respondent No. 2.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, Sections 74, 75, 78, and 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Mohan Maruti Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2860098
